That’s just it. The universe we see may be local just as our planet is local, but on a smaller scale. 100 years ago we thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in existence. Before that we didn’t even know that we lived in a galaxy, and the only stars we were aware of were the stars in our local area of the galaxy. I’m not saying that this trend will continue, but I think we should also be a bit humble about drawing borders where the edge of everything ends.
I think it is human vanity to think that the universe is finely tuned for life when there are many, many more things in our universe that also couldn’t exist if the laws of nature were slightly different. For all we know, our universe was designed by a 4th grader from a superintelligent and advanced race of aliens as a homework assignment. The 4th grader was trying to create a universe with tons of supermassive black holes and no life. He failed on the second requirement and only got a B-. For all we know, the entire universe was designed to create the enigmatic face on Mars which also requires a finely tuned universe.
1 Like
You are (in my opinion) missing the boat. Fine-tuning does not imply (which doesn’t stop some from inferring) a fine-tuner. “Fine tuning” is just a sexier name than “the problem that the habitability of the universe, given that heavy elements are needed for any kind of life, appears to be highly sensitive to the values of the constants.”
It is the (perhaps unfortunate) name given to a fascinating scientific problem or puzzle, not an implication of intelligence behind the universe. (Although you can go there, if you want, but that’s philosophy, not science.)
1 Like
Thanks for highlighting the things I overlooked in my post. I didn’t mean to imply that fine tuning necessarily points to a tuner, but I can definitely see how someone can reach that conclusion.
Quantum are not laws if they are ruled by chance. The quantum universe is too small to be observed in detail, so we cannot see how they work. The quantum universe works in part by probability, just as the weather is predicted in terms of probability, but that does not mean that the weather is based on chance.
Every atom includes a quantum world, but whatever probability effects the elements of that world, it does not change the rationality of that molecule. The quantum world does not determine the visible world.
The study of the quantum world is interesting, but so far it appears to disprove the promise ofreductionism that scientists hoped would solve the questions of the universe.
You understand that these laws (that you say are not laws) dictate how something big (the computer you used to write your post) operates? Your computer’s operation depends entirely on the very probabilistic process of electrons quantum-tunneling through potential barriers and ending up where, classically, they cannot be.
Why not?[quote=“Relates, post:45, topic:36932”]
The quantum universe is too small to be observed in detail, so we cannot see how they work.
[/quote]
You can run the double slit experiment yourself and observe the results.[quote=“Relates, post:45, topic:36932”]
The quantum universe works in part by probability, just as the weather is predicted in terms of probability, but that does not mean that the weather is based on chance.
[/quote]
Probability and chance are the same thing, so you seem to be arguing against yourself. The chance of winning the lottery is described by a probability, as one example.
It is expected to rain tonight. The probability is 100%. However this rain is not caused by random chance, the rain is caused by wind, heat, and humidity.
The lottery is not a scientific or natural event. It is designed to work by chance. I do not think that you would take a trip on an airplane if its destination and safety were determined by chance.
I think that you are mistaken. The computer works by coding, processing, and transmitting information.
Is that tongue-in-cheek? If not, I have one word: transistor.
You say that this question is scientific, but the answer may not be. I would agree in the sense that at some point philosophy, science, and theology interface, and this is the place. Therefore we cannot make strict boundaries between fundamental aspects of the universe.
It sounds as if you are talking about the anthropic principle, which I understand is an actual scientific theory. The anthropic principle says that our universe is set up in such “a nature that as will produce and accommodate beings who can perceive it.” p. 757, The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. To put this in theological terms God created humans in God’s own image and created the world/universe as their home.
At one time I questioned this, but when reading Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, I thought how can we have “time,” or eve3n “space” which are so necessary to physics and science without “beings who can perceive” these non-material things. Evolution produced rational and purpose oriented human beings. This must mean that rationality and purpose must give humans a evolutionary advantage.
If God created the universe through the Big Bang, which I find to be a very reasonable conclusion, then it is the universe through ecology and evolution created human beings in God’s own Image. This said fine-tuning does not prove anything, if one means fool proof evidence, because this is not possible. It is however rational evidence for the Creation of the Universe by YHWH (God.)
How is it not caused by random chance?[quote=“Relates, post:48, topic:36932”]
The lottery is not a scientific or natural event. It is designed to work by chance. I do not think that you would take a trip on an airplane if its destination and safety were determined by chance.
[/quote]
If it wasn’t determined by chance then why do airplanes sometimes crash? Is every airplane crash purposefully caused by someone?
There are many reasons or causes for airplane crashes, some of them deliberate.
However I think that I can say that just because there is an average of x number of crashes per month, there will be x crashes this month. Accidents do not happen without causes. For the most part they can be prevented, although of course there will always be accidents because we live in a limited physical world where things don’t always work the way they should as well as human error, and unusual natural conditions.
You can predict that whatever the cosmological constant, the fact you are present to attempt the calculation means the the constant can’t be outside of an acceptable range, yes?
Remember that Sully guy who landed the plane in the Hudson river? That was all started by birds crashing into the engines. I would call that bad luck, a chance event. What do you think?
Quantum mechanics is a set of laws, and they work through chance. I still don’t understand why you say that if something occurs by chance that it can’t be a law. The laws of thermodynamics works by through random motion of atoms. Temperature itself is the average kinetic energy of a group of atoms moving randomly. The Ideal Gas Laws are the result of atoms moving around randomly. The laws governing radioactive decay come to down random quantum tunneling events in the nuclei of atoms. Time and again we see chance and randomness as the basis for natural laws.
@Jon_Garvey has written pretty extensively on this topic and influenced the way I think about it. I used to speak this language too of chance causing things --and informally I may still let phrases like that slip. But I have to agree with Jon that chance is not an agent and doesn’t cause anything. It is an expression of ignorance of true agents and true causes. So “chance” is more an expression of ignorance than of lawful causation. We say the coin flip or the weather are random, but they are only random to us. They both have a myriad of real causes driving them – none of which are chance so far as we can see. One can argue that chance is inherently written into the quantum levels that still influence these events, but the assertion of that truly ontological randomness written into the very fabric of creation is a faith statement, not a scientific one.
added edit: … indeed any truly random event would have to be supernatural [a truly causeless event] … amounting to the ultimate abdication away from science; a notion I doubt you would be excited to entertain, T.
2 Likes
The scientific assertion is that if a process is consistent with a random process, then we tentatively conclude that it is a random process. The faith statement is the one where you say that it really isn’t random, even though we have no evidence demonstrating that it is nonrandom.
As it is, the natural world works just fine with these random processes. In fact, the very operation of the natural world requires that they be random, such as in the case of ideal gas laws or thermodynamics. If they were nonrandom then they wouldn’t work the same way, at least from my understanding.
Why would a random event require a deity?
I didn’t say it would … those are your words; but I don’t necessarily disagree with them. All I was asserting is that a truly causeless event would be, by definition I should think, at the outer boundary of science. Science can only observe that it occurred, but there is no cause behind it to investigate; if there were, it wouldn’t be random.
You are correct that this is actually a faith statement either way – I don’t have (and never offered – never thought there to be any) evidence that things are not random any more than you have that they (at their very root of causation) are.
So it is an interesting quandary you have … you want to think that everything you accept as true has empirical evidence behind it. So from where I sit it looks like you have a choice of A> true randomness (entailing uncaused or “outside of nature” …indeed “outside of science” events), or B> something else lawful and orderly down to its very roots that you seem keen to deny. It is an intriguing dilemma even before it gets to anything you call religious.
2 Likes
"indeed any truly random event would have to be supernatural "–Mervin
I equate supernatural with the actions of deities, so that is how I read it.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:58, topic:36932”]
All I was asserting is that a truly causeless event would be, by definition I should think, at the outer boundary of science. Science can only observe that it occurred, but there is no cause behind it to investigate; if there were, it wouldn’t be random.
[/quote]
Why can’t a cause result in randomness? Also, science studies causeless events all of the time, and it isn’t a problem. The Casimir effect is a good example where you have virtual particles popping in and out of existence with no cause as part of a quantized field.
The non-faith statement is the tentative conclusion that there is randomness because the evidence is consistent with random events, which is the position I currently occupy.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:58, topic:36932”]
So it is an interesting quandary you have … you want to think that everything you accept as true has empirical evidence behind it. So from where I sit it looks like you have a choice of A> true randomness (entailing uncaused or “outside of nature” …indeed “outside of science” events), or B> something else lawful and orderly down to its very roots that you seem keen to deny. It is an intriguing dilemma even before it gets to anything you call religious.
[/quote]
I do have evidence that events are random. What I don’t do is proclaim that randomness is absolutely true. I think that last part is what you are missing.
yeah … I know that “supernatural” is a trigger word for you; that’s why I reworded it to “outside of nature or science” in my subsequent description.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:59, topic:36932”]
Also, science studies causeless events all of the time, and it isn’t a problem. The Casimir effect is a good example where you have virtual particles popping in and out of existence with no cause as part of a quantized field.[/quote]
Has this actually been observed? Or is it just hypothesized? I have no idea what the “Casimir effect” is and so can’t speak to that specifically. I do know generally, though, that declaring there to be no cause where none has been demonstrated is not the game an empiricist should be eager to play. It is like me declaring that anything we haven’t seen cannot exist. That is quite an unimpressive leap of faith on your part if you wish to go there. I like to have a bit more evidence for my leaps of faith.
It is a non-faith statement because it isn’t really a statement at all --at least not an informative one. Saying things are random because you can produce a normal distribution is the same as saying that things are the way they are. It tells us nothing about why they are that way. So it is tautology.
So when you say…
I disagree with your first statement above only if you pushed it as an absolute – which is why I absolutely appreciate and agree with your second one as the much needed, qualifying, caveat. “Random” is a good, indisputably useful placeholder word for us in our everyday practices and perceptions, but I don’t see that as evidence that the concept goes deeper into the very roots of phenomena themselves. Perhaps it is --and if so, I’m in awe of whatever impenetrable mystery would be behind such an opaque wall. If not, well then at least one thing about physics finally matches my intuitive comprehension.