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?

[otseng]

Let us suppose that there exists another universe where the laws of mathematics is different from our universe. And let us even suppose that some sort of complex life exists in the alternate universe. However, this does not address the apparent fine-tuning of the constants for our universe.

I am inspired to recall the example delivered by the exemplary author Douglas Adams: Yours is an example analogous to a puddle claiming that the hole it finds itself in must have been designed to fit it.

QED and I have already agreed that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants demand an explanation. Saying the universe is analogous to a puddle doesn't explain the apparent fine-tuning.

The Universe is not designed for us, but rather we happen to find ourselves in this particular Universe.

How would using a truism ("we happen to find ourselves in this particular Universe") show that the universe is not designed?

If you're allowing that intelligent life would exist in another Universe with different constants, then the entire notion of design goes out the window with it.

I'm not making a statement that other intelligent life exists in other universes. I'm simply saying that it does not address the apparent fine-tuning of the constants in our universe.

[Furrowed Brow]

QED and I have already agreed that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants demand an explanation. Saying the universe is analogous to a puddle doesn't explain the apparent fine-tuning.

Hey but I disagreed . Even the phrase "fine-tuning" is a presupposition. If the question is "why do all the physical constants take the values they do and not some other value" then I'd say that requires a scientific explanation. And I'll be interested to see if QED feels whether it is a question of that sort that motivates his view.

But if the question is "why are the physical constants fine tuned for life" - then that is - as I am sure I am boring every one now - a semantic confusion. You could equally ask "why are the physical constants fine tuned to produce the periodic table just as it is observed?". Superficially it looks like a proper question, but you think about it a bit and you soon realise it's a non question. It's a non question, because whatever values the physical constants take will lead to a universe of some form. So whatever the form of the universe, the values of the constants will look tuned to producing that particular universe even if it is a universe that lacks a periodic table.

The point is I think that "life" is being raised as a special case. Isn’t it strangely fortuitous that the universe we observe contains life. Well of course it does.

The fine tuning argument attempts to place severe limitations on the possible values of the physical constants so that only the observed values are the ones that can permit life. Even if we accept that limitation - why are we raising life as the point of the universe? Uniqueness or improbability in no way imply design when considering the stuff on the cosmic scale. Someone has just discovered "kryptonite" in a mine. This is rarer than life. By the measure of uniqueness the physical constants are then tuned for kryptonite.

[Cathar1950]

It seems to me it is still backwards.
If we were here first and the universe came later I guess we could say the universe is fine tuned to us but we came later and it seems we are turned and not so finely to the universe.
We adapted as life forms to the universe.
I can imagine many things not adapting and perishing, most in fact seem to.
But some hang in there because they fit the universe.
The universe is like a cullender shifting what doesn't work out.

[Goat]

Let us suppose that there exists another universe where the laws of mathematics is different from our universe. And let us even suppose that some sort of complex life exists in the alternate universe. However, this does not address the apparent fine-tuning of the constants for our universe.

I am inspired to recall the example delivered by the exemplary author Douglas Adams: Yours is an example analogous to a puddle claiming that the hole it finds itself in must have been designed to fit it.

QED and I have already agreed that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants demand an explanation. Saying the universe is analogous to a puddle doesn't explain the apparent fine-tuning.

Why not? things form with that materials that are available. It isn't the fact that
the universe is fine tuned for us. It is the fact we are fine tuned to our environment. .. and that process is random variation followed by a selection process.

[otseng]

The OP did not ask if the universe has the appearance of fine-tuning. It already assumes this. And the thread originator has already stated:

The only empirical evidence that we have are the constants in our own universe. And we have no empirical data of the constants in other universes.

Agreed. All we know is that the apparent fine-tuning of our constants begs an explanation.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6525#10652

So, if QED would want to address if the appearance of fine-tuning is a legitimate premise, I'll let him tackle it.

[QED]

I agree with those who feel that the balance between the various dimensionless constants isn't something we could expect to happen naturally if the Big Bang represents the true beginning of all time and all space that has ever existed. Apart from some degree of success in inflationary theory in delivering a solution to the cosmological flatness problem, it's difficult to see how the model could be adapted to solve all the other problems.

Of course there may be an unexpected solution waiting around the corner, but as FB points out, if this is the only way a universe can be then that eliminates the need for a designer anyway. But I fail to see how we can rest comfortably on our laurels in the absence of such a solution. To my way of thinking we should also be looking for some kind of selection process and the AP furnishes us with a number of options.

By far the most plausible to me, as I have already stated, is that we have selected our own set of parameters from an extant range provided by an approximate repeat of the process we can witness taking place in our own universe. We know we're in a dynamic environment and I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that it's a unique event. Given these conditions, the remarkable balances found in the natural constants transforms into a remarkable number of variations from which it was possible for us to select them from. I don't think we have any feel at all for how inhabitable other universes with other parameters might be. But it doesn't really matter if it's one in a million, or one in ten to the power one-hundred. Enormous odds like those were stacked against each and every one of us from turning out to be precisely the person we turned out to be -- but they didn't stop us!

[Furrowed Brow]

I agree with those who feel that the balance between the various dimensionless constants isn't something we could expect to happen naturally if the Big Bang represents the true beginning of all time and all space that has ever existed. Apart from some degree of success in inflationary theory in delivering a solution to the cosmological flatness problem, it's difficult to see how the model could be adapted to solve all the other problems.

Lets take a step back. Physics has some problems to solve. Some of these problems are due to observations that disagree with our best model, not just in terms of values but also in that some rules seem to apply to some kinds of interactions but not others. If you’ll allow I’m going to use CP invariance to draw out the problems in the logic for deducing design.

Where rules like CP invariance apply to electromagnetism ands the Strong force, they appear to be incredibly successful at describing these interactions. However this rule does not apply to the Weak force. So this is not just the case of getting a different value, but actually getting a different behaviour to what might be expected if things were just more darn consistent.

There seems to be two basic ways we can respond to this kind of inconsistence.

1/ We are still some way from a full understanding - but the apparent inconsistency is really down to our incomplete knowledge. Thus it is a problem for knowledge, not a problem for the universe.

2/ [a] We do understand reality pretty well, and our expectation of the weak decay obeying CP invariance is fully justified. Thus the observed invariance is an inconsistency that gives evidence of meddling with the fundamental forces to get them to behave as observed, because without intervention the universe would have been different. And the reason for meddling is [c] to ensure the universe allows life.

Now if 2[a] is true, it seems we should conclude . But why [c]? What’s life got to do with the fundamental laws and its meddlings? Why are we being so presumptuous to presume that the universal meddler designed the universe this way just for life. Maybe the designer likes patterns, and the pattern of the periodic table is pleasing. Ok I am be facetious. But the point is that to presume its all about life is to already build into one’s analysis certain life centred evaluations. [c] is not a valid deduction based on the evidence even if 2[a] and 2 are true. Instead [c] requires a leap of the imagination, and an egocentric view of the universe. Which is only plausible if one already believes we are that important to the universe.

However we should dig a little deeper and ask the question by what means the designer has meddled with CP invariance? We can see the invariance, but how is it achieved. Either we will work the answer to that out or we will not. If we do then we will have found a new principle, and maybe a theory of everything. How do we then distinguish this new principle of nature from the meddling of a designer? Well if we’ve been able to fit that principle into a self consistent conceptual framework, then it won’t look like design at all. It will look perfectly natural and without purpose. Alternatively if we can’t fit CP invariance into a natural model, then we are left at 1. A position of ignorance. A position from which it is not valid to move to 2.

To make that move something firmer is required. Perhaps if some one comes along with a Goedel like proof that shows that CP invariance of the weak force can never be fitted into a natural model. I.e. the rules of the universe are proved to be necessarily incomplete. But we are several rungs down the ladder of knowledge to validly conclude 2 and even if we arrive at that point, we still cannot validly conclude that the universe is fine-tuned specifically for life. To make that inference requires religion.