Universal Evolution

[QED]

Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants.

For example if the gravitational constant was too low stars would not shine. If higher then stars would burn up too fast using up all their fuel before life had a chance to evolve on planets in orbit around them. Likewise, if the electromagnetic coupling constant had been lower, electrons would not stay in orbit around atomic nuclei. If higher, electrons would not bond with other atoms. Also, if the strong force coupling constant holding particles together in the atomic nucleus were weaker, then multi-proton particles would not be viable and the only element in the Universe would be Hydrogen. If stronger the only element in the universe might be Iron. Complex molecules are thus only possible in a narrow range of conditions.

This gives rise to the notion of a high degree of "fine tuning" required in order to bring about a universe suitable for life. The properties of the universe that we currently enjoy emerge directly from these apparently "carefully chosen" values and even the tiniest changes would preclude life from ever appearing. Some people look upon all this as a clear indication of there having been some supreme designer who sensitively adjusted a set of cosmic dials at the inception of the universe in order that it would be long lived and bountiful. Sadly not much can be said or done to test this hypothesis, and as such it remains a non-scientific explanation.

However there are other theories as to why we might find ourselves in such an apparently carefully designed universe. And thankfully some of these ideas come with their own methods of verification which means that they do not have to remain purely speculative. This is a vital distinction because some people seem to be under the impression that there are limits to knowledge when it comes to matters relating to universal origins and this is not necessarily the case.

For example, in one idea developed by Professor Lee Smolin, natural selection becomes responsible for all the apparent Intelligent Design of our universe in the same way that natural selection explains the apparent design of living things. Essentially what he is saying is that there exist many universes, just as there exist many animals and that universes, like animals, have a system of reproduction with some universes being more efficient than others at creating progeny. At the heart of his theory are black holes which are produced by certain types of dying stars.

Along with Alan Guth, Smolin suggests that when viewed from the other side of their event horizons black holes look like new inflating universes. If the laws of nature in each new universe relate to those of the parent natural selection will step in to "fine tune" the physical constants over many generations such that universes large enough and complex enough to form stars of the right composition will dominate over those with less favourable tuning for black hole production.

As a consequence any universe that we happen to find ourselves in would tend towards being one in which the physical constants were tuned towards values resulting in something approaching a maximum for black hole production. This is where the potential for validation comes in: If the theory is to remain standing then changes in the physical constants ought to result in a reduction of black hole production. If changes were available which increased production then we would have to ask why natural selection had not gone down this route already. So far Smolin's theory has withstood this test to an impressive degree. Theoretical tweaking of the constants both above and below the known values do indeed reduce the number of black holes that would result.

Does this not demonstrate then that science can look beyond what might seem like brick-walls and, while not delivering us with certainties, can deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubts?

(I've started this new debate topic in order to draw off-topic discussion along these lines away from the Hovind/Callahan Debate)

[Curious]

Curious


...We exist in this universe because the critical values were such that our existance was possible.

In other words we were lucky that our universe had the correct values so that we could exist. What is the probability that our universe would have the right values for us to exist??? 1 to 1, 100%, unity because that is the way it happened.

Just a thought.

Grumpy 8)

I agree entirely, it's like tossing a bazillion bricks in the air and we, as the last tower standing, state that for our foundation to be firm, it must have been constructed with immense care.

[Bro Dave]

For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

And all in all, that is irrelevant, as the claims of the UB are no different than claims from individuals. They are all of the "just because I say so" postulation type. Science actually provides evidence.

"just because I say so" is not the posture the UB offers. It does not seek to be authoritarian, only explanatory.

And that explanation is "because I say so."

If you say so...

Bro Dave

[steen]

For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

And all in all, that is irrelevant, as the claims of the UB are no different than claims from individuals. They are all of the "just because I say so" postulation type. Science actually provides evidence.

"just because I say so" is not the posture the UB offers. It does not seek to be authoritarian, only explanatory.

And that explanation is "because I say so."

If you say so...

Of course I say so. You have not showed any evidence, only conjecture.

[QED]

I agree entirely, it's like tossing a bazillion bricks in the air and we, as the last tower standing, state that for our foundation to be firm, it must have been constructed with immense care.

Hey Curious!

While being tantalizing and interesting, the anthropic principle (in all its various strengths) has no explanatory power. Sadly it isn't possible to take the observation of the apparent fine-tuning and draw a meaningful conclusion either way. The observation is equally consistent with both careful planning of a universe by a creator and with happenstance arising from an infinitude of unplanned self-organized events.

However, I was motivated to start this topic because it seemed to me that people were under the impression that this would be a problem with all theories of universal origin. This is not necessarily the case, which is why I mentioned Smolin's theory. This theory suggests a mechanism for the formation of universes and the really interesting part is that it makes a testable prediction -- that the universal constants would be optimally set for the production of black holes. This is the sort of calculation that cosmologists can perform and if found to be true, would give us an extraordinarily high probability that black holes were indeed the cause of universes.

I think it's important to understand that probability is highly sensitive to context. In the case of the physical constants happening by chance the probability being something like 1 in 10 raised to the power 160 does not mean that that they must therefore have been made like that on purpose. This might be the most tempting reading for those of a religious persuasion but it has to be understood that this interpretation can be totally defeated by putting the observation in a different context. An example of this would be the huge improbability that leads to each and every one of us. Just Considering the numerically probability of us having our own particular DNA sequence might suggest that we too were assembled on purpose. Yet I would hope we could all see that our fantastic improbability in this context means nothing really.

But what if we are faced with a fantastic coincidence in the nature of the physical constants being optimally tuned for the production of black holes -- the hypothetical source of all new universes. Unlike the apparent fantastic coincidence of us having our own particular combination of DNA this coincidence would have real meaning because it tells us that there is something of importance about black holes i.e. it is wholly consistent with the explanation being offered.

I'm laboring this point because it provides us with an example of how, while being bounded by our universe, we still have the potential to make theories based on observations about the universe that take us outside it and explain it's causation -- and, most importantly of all, provide us with meaningful confidence checks to assure us that our theory is correct. I will repeat my disclaimer that Smolin's theory may well be rubbished by the discovery that the universe is far from being optimally tuned for black holes, but if nothing more it serves to show how another such theory might crop up one day and easily transcend the barriers to knowledge that many people seem to assume exist when it comes to universal origins.

[Cathar1950]

Curious wrote:

I agree entirely, it's like tossing a bazillion bricks in the air and we, as the last tower standing, state that for our foundation to be firm, it must have been constructed with immense care.

I think it is more like a "bazillion" bricks fell two or three made some kind of order another "bazillion" fell and made the order larger and we stand in awe because we can't count that far anyway. That is why we use scientific notation. I cant comprehend 10 to the 110th power but I can compare 110 to 120.
Where the universe came from and how it got here is much like wondering how God came into being, if everything had to come from some place. We don't know but we look and study and experiment and make theories. As humans how do we have consciousness? Maybe the universe has consciousness. Which is why I tend to be a panentheist. We don't know that God created it. Just because a book or some people say God did it does not mean God created it. Maybe God is as surprised as we are.
There are many unexplained phenomena and weird stuff happens. It maybe comforting to just chalk it all off on God. I am not prepared to say there is no God how ever we define God but I can see unreasonable assumptions that should be questioned. Like any anthropologist we should realize that if a people believe something, for them it is real and they will act like it is real. Is Israel a prophesy fulfilled? Or is it a self fulfilling prophesy? Even if it is God's work, did God see the future or did God make it happen? I regress.

[DiracsGhost]

I agree entirely, it's like tossing a bazillion bricks in the air and we, as the last tower standing, state that for our foundation to be firm, it must have been constructed with immense care.

Hey Curious!

While being tantalizing and interesting, the anthropic principle (in all its various strengths) has no explanatory power.

Wow, is that statement ever false. Do you know who Fred Hoyle was, or do you think that the anthropic principle is just about string theory vacua?

You name it, and I'll use the anthropic principle to explain it. How's that sound?

Sadly it isn't possible to take the observation of the apparent fine-tuning and draw a meaningful conclusion either way. The observation is equally consistent with both careful planning of a universe by a creator and with happenstance arising from an infinitude of unplanned self-organized events.

No, that's false, as well. The anthropic principle is a fact of the observed universe, and you have zero proof that an infinitude of anything can exist.

You can't supercede facts of the observed universe with theoretical speculation, just because people have taken the liberty of extending interpretations of the AP beyond the observed universe.

The actual known evidence suggests that the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, and in a closed and fininte universe... that defines the ToE... donchano?

Wikipedia does not an anthropic expert make... lol

[QED]

Hey welcome to the DC&R forums DiracsGhost! I get a feeling that you might be able to add some interesting stuff to this and many other topics -- I hope you're planing to stick around

While being tantalizing and interesting, the anthropic principle (in all its various strengths) has no explanatory power.

Wow, is that statement ever false. Do you know who Fred Hoyle was, or do you think that the anthropic principle is just about string theory vacua?

As you must already know the AP has been the subject of a fair amount of consderation by many experienced philosophers. Here's a link to one resource I've been making use of recently.

You name it, and I'll use the anthropic principle to explain it. How's that sound?

Well, how about telling me how it could be used to explain which interpretation of the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants is the correct one?

Sadly it isn't possible to take the observation of the apparent fine-tuning and draw a meaningful conclusion either way. The observation is equally consistent with both careful planning of a universe by a creator and with happenstance arising from an infinitude of unplanned self-organized events.

No, that's false, as well. The anthropic principle is a fact of the observed universe, and you have zero proof that an infinitude of anything can exist.

I don't recall claiming to be in possession of any proof that an infinitude of anything could exist -- I merely pointed out that we would not be able to draw any reliable conclusions from our observations because of the potential for a vast number of self organized events (there would not need to be an infinite number - just a sufficient number to balance-out the (im)probability factor presented by the apparent fine-tuning)

You can't supercede facts of the observed universe with theoretical speculation, just because people have taken the liberty of extending interpretations of the AP beyond the observed universe.

Are you suggesting then that Lee Smolin's theory (for example) is inadmissible due to it's theoretical extension beyond this universe? I can appreciate that the theory may be dismissed by observing contradictions in this universe (contradictions that he has encouraged others to look out for) but it would seem that you might be placing an arbitrary and unjustified restriction on the scope of theoretical speculation!

The actual known evidence suggests that the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, and in a closed and fininte universe... that defines the ToE... donchano?

Perhaps you could sweep aside any potential misunderstanding here by explaining exactly what you mean by being "anthropic in nature" -- as you say Wikipedia might not always be the ultimate guide to such matters.

[DiracsGhost]

Hey welcome to the DC&R forums DiracsGhost! I get a feeling that you might be able to add some interesting stuff to this and many other topics -- I hope you're planing to stick around

While being tantalizing and interesting, the anthropic principle (in all its various strengths) has no explanatory power.

Wow, is that statement ever false. Do you know who Fred Hoyle was, or do you think that the anthropic principle is just about string theory vacua?

As you must already know the AP has been the subject of a fair amount of consderation by many experienced philosophers. Here's a link to one resource I've been making use of recently.

My point was that Fred Hoyle used the AP to make predictions, as well as other modern theorists. There are numerous papers in the arxiv archive to this effect. Thanks for the welcome and I'm sorry if I came-in, debating to win...

You name it, and I'll use the anthropic principle to explain it. How's that sound?

Well, how about telling me how it could be used to explain which interpretation of the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants is the correct one?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, and I was hoping that you'd ask me to use it to predict something simple, like, where else in the universe life is most probable... ?

Seriously, can you better explain what you mean?

Sadly it isn't possible to take the observation of the apparent fine-tuning and draw a meaningful conclusion either way. The observation is equally consistent with both careful planning of a universe by a creator and with happenstance arising from an infinitude of unplanned self-organized events.

No, that's false, as well. The anthropic principle is a fact of the observed universe, and you have zero proof that an infinitude of anything can exist.

I don't recall claiming to be in possession of any proof that an infinitude of anything could exist -- I merely pointed out that we would not be able to draw any reliable conclusions from our observations because of the potential for a vast number of self organized events (there would not need to be an infinite number - just a sufficient number to balance-out the (im)probability factor presented by the apparent fine-tuning)

There is no evidence that there is any real potential for vast number of anything. There is only evidence that it can only be the way that it is. Maybe this explains how it could be used to explain which interpretation of the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants is the correct one?

You can't supercede facts of the observed universe with theoretical speculation, just because people have taken the liberty of extending interpretations of the AP beyond the observed universe.

Are you suggesting then that Lee Smolin's theory (for example) is inadmissible due to it's theoretical extension beyond this universe? I can appreciate that the theory may be dismissed by observing contradictions in this universe (contradictions that he has encouraged others to look out for) but it would seem that you might be placing an arbitrary and unjustified restriction on the scope of theoretical speculation!

Like I told Lee, there is no reason to speculate to other possible universes if a cyclic universe can produce the same results over time. I also questioned Lee's assumption that an ancestoral universe can be produced from a black hole "bounce" without a "leap" in efficiency.

That's another story... but, my beef is about using speculative theories in the origins science. What Lee is saying is fine IF it causes string theory to miraculously start making reliable predictions which prove that it is the ToE, but until that happens, one missing piece of the puzzle can completely reverse the meaning of the evidence, so until that happens, only interpretations of the anthropic principle that respect its impact on the observed universe are permissible in the origins debate.

The actual known evidence suggests that the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, and in a closed and fininte universe... that defines the ToE... donchano?

Perhaps you could sweep aside any potential misunderstanding here by explaining exactly what you mean by being "anthropic in nature" -- as you say Wikipedia might not always be the ultimate guide to such matters.

I just mean that an anthropically constrained universe defines the reason that symmetry is broken or FIXED in the manner that it is. If there is only one possible universe, then it's a stability principle, because it explains how an accelerating expanding universe can still be flat and stable, with no runaway effect.

[QED]

Well, how about telling me how it could be used to explain which interpretation of the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants is the correct one?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, and I was hoping that you'd ask me to use it to predict something simple, like, where else in the universe life is most probable... ?

Seriously, can you better explain what you mean?

Sure, it's nothing too demanding: Theists tend to look at the numerical probability of the physical consants being what they are (within acceptable limits for the existence of life) and declare "it can't just be a lucky hit! The numbers must have been put in by divine hand." Yet is that conclusion born out a proper assesment of probability? To be confident of this conclusion we have to be certain that the formation of the universe was a one-off event and that no other universes exist or had previously existed. That is all.

As far as I can determine the AP has no power to resolve which of these interpretations is correct hence I was interested to see if you could make it work for us.

I personally think the fact that cosmologists can develop alternative theories makes the conclusion of a divine hand somewhat dubious. Now some might wish to argue that no valid theories can ever be developed that transcend the boundaries of our universe. This argument often comes from the sort of people who deny that we can look back in time by studying evidence preserved in rocks, but I don't imagine that is where you are coming from. Such people think you actually have to be there to see something happen in order to know what happened.

There is no evidence that there is any real potential for vast number of anything. There is only evidence that it can only be the way that it is. Maybe this explains how it could be used to explain which interpretation of the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants is the correct one?

I'm deliberately steering around all the different flavours of AP and in particular anything that has to do with "final causes" because I only see it as a philosophical device that can be made to serve any side of an argument. I am suspicious that you might be convinced it only works it's magic spell in your own hands...

Like I told Lee, there is no reason to speculate to other possible universes if a cyclic universe can produce the same results over time.

What with you and Harvey I'm beginning to think that I'm the only debater here who hasn't spoken to Lee Smolin!

I also questioned Lee's assumption that an ancestoral universe can be produced from a black hole "bounce" without a "leap" in efficiency.

That's another story... but, my beef is about using speculative theories in the origins science. What Lee is saying is fine IF it causes string theory to miraculously start making reliable predictions which prove that it is the ToE, but until that happens, one missing piece of the puzzle can completely reverse the meaning of the evidence, so until that happens, only interpretations of the anthropic principle that respect its impact on the observed universe are permissible in the origins debate.

So we don't get too confused I hope you've read this topic form the begining. I've already had to re-state on several ocassions that I am not arguing for or against Smolins theory of cosmological natural selection -- what I am trying to do is hold it up as an example of how a speculative theory can look beyond the seemingly impenetrable boundary of our universe and come up roses if it's predictions are matched by observation. This upsets the type of person who thinks you have to be there and see something happen to know that it happened. I sincerely hope you are not of that build!

I just mean that an anthropically constrained universe defines the reason that symmetry is broken or FIXED in the manner that it is. If there is only one possible universe, then it's a stability principle, because it explains how an accelerating expanding universe can still be flat and stable, with no runaway effect.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all here. For starters what do you mean by "an anthropically constrained universe"?

[Curious]

I agree entirely, it's like tossing a bazillion bricks in the air and we, as the last tower standing, state that for our foundation to be firm, it must have been constructed with immense care.

Hey Curious!

While being tantalizing and interesting, the anthropic principle (in all its various strengths) has no explanatory power. Sadly it isn't possible to take the observation of the apparent fine-tuning and draw a meaningful conclusion either way. The observation is equally consistent with both careful planning of a universe by a creator and with happenstance arising from an infinitude of unplanned self-organized events....

I do hope the intended irony of my previous statement did not go unnoticed. I might add though that the likelihood of such a possiblity, to my mind, seems no more probable than the spontaneous evolution of a single sentience that could furnish the illusion of the present physical realty. While the present physical reality requires countless "fine tunings", the illusion would require only the appearance of such. Not that I am in the habit of wielding Occam's razor.