Due to the fact
that this argument keeps being advanced, despite being addressed and shown to
be deeply flawed, I have decided to create a document that will gather all
parts of this issue into one place. This will serve to keep the separation of
time and space from allowing people to forget and disavow that these arguments
have been addressed, as it will be here and accessible to all.
The formulation of
the fine-tuning argument (FTA) is sometimes presented in a Bayesian form of
probability. I will not present this form, as it will only serve to cloud the
issue, and render this treatment unfriendly to the average reader. If anyone
wishes to discuss the Bayesian inference argument, I’m more than willing to do so
in the comment section, however. Throughout this document I am going to try to
avoid being too technical, though some technicality is inherent in the
argument.
The Argument
FTA is basically
the following argument: The universe
that we inhabit appears to be finely tuned to produce the complex structures,
such as stars, galaxies, the heavier elements, all of which are necessary to
produce life. This fine-tuning is a result of either, chance, necessity, or
design. It is highly improbable that this is due to chance or necessity.
Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that this fine-tuning is the result of
design.
The appearance of
fine-tuning comes from the observance that physical parameters, such as the
mass of the proton, neutron, and electron, are values that work together in a
very delicate balance, such that changing any one of these parameters by a very
small amount would render the formation of matter, the structure of the
universe, the formation of stars, and the emergence of life impossible.
I
feel that I’ve presented the argument with explanation fairly and neutrally. Of
course, if anyone has a suggested revision, addition, or subtraction from this
argument, once again, address it in the comments section. From this point on, I will be
addressing what I see as flaws in this argument.
Scientific Objections to FTA
Probability Is Not Applicable
When
this argument is presented, the language of probability is used, and as I
mentioned above, even the Bayesian formula for inferring probability is used.
Saying something is probable or improbable gives it a force of sounding
technical and “sciency”. The
problem with using this language, calling the likelihood of chance or necessity
being the explanation for the universe we observe improbable, is that probability cannot be applied to the argument
according to the most basic rules of probability. 1 When a normal six-sided die is rolled, the established
rules of mathematical probability state that the probability of rolling any
particular number is 1/6. Thus, the added probability of rolling each of these
numbers equals 6/6 or 1. In probability calculation, the sum probability of all
possible outcomes must equal 1, as probability values are always between 0 and
1 (1 = 100%). The value of any given physical parameter is not limited by any
logical argument. This means that the possible values of any and all physical
parameters can be and may be infinite. If that is the case, then figuring
probability from an infinite set cannot be summed to a total probability of 1,
as the sum of all possible outcomes in an infinite set is infinity. Thus the
probability of these values being what they are is not calculable. What this
means in layman’s terms is that “we do not have enough information about how
possible universes may vary”. The possible parameters from an infinite set have
an infinite number of possibilities, and so the likelihood of any set of
parameters producing a universe friendly to life is inscrutable. This means
that FTA is not a formalized scientific argument; it is an intuitional
argument. This is all a mathematical treatment that points to the fact that our
level of ignorance concerning universe formation is woefully high, so high that
we can’t say how likely any of it is, formally or intuitionally.
The Coarse-Tuning Argument
The Coarse-Tuning Argument
Some
may argue that this is just a mathematical trick. However, it should be noted
that math is a language that is used in physics to describe reality as closely
as possible. In other words, that probability isn’t applicable likely means
that it is not a valid argument, in terms of establishing a prior probability. There is a counter-argument that puts
the one who argues to somehow rescue the probable statement of the FTA in an
uncomfortable position of having to admit that the appearance of coarse tuning
would not suggest the need for any intelligent design. This is uncomfortable
because the probabilistic representation of either argument is
indistinguishable from the other, and thus any inference drawn by one argument
has a corresponding inference in the other. Fine-tuning has already been
explained as physical parameters that couldn’t vary by much to produce a
universe similar to our own, that could lead to complex life. Coarse-tuning, on
the hand, describes physical parameters that could vary by quite a lot, and
still produce similar universe to what we observe. Following, I post a link to
a paper discussing this argument for you to read. Behind this argument is a
basis of probability and mathematics that is beyond most math and physics
laypersons. Hopefully by posting this discussion, you can get a better
understanding of the mathematical basis. 1
Proposed Fine-Tuning
Parameters
Covering
all of these proposed parameters and arguments concerning them would require a
book. It is therefore my intention to tackle these one by one as they are
brought up in the comments section. I have not covered all of the proposed
parameters arguments, though I’ve read quite a bit. A particularly interesting
book on this is Victor Stenger’s
“The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us”. 4
In this book, Dr. Stenger, an
eminent and respected physicist, explains how the very way that physics has
developed shows that these parameters are not as finely-tuned as some purport.
He goes on to suggest that many of these supposed fine-tunings are exaggerated
and just plain wrong-headed, based upon misunderstandings and neglected facts.
It’s a complicated set of arguments and ideas when one these arguments in the
math and physics basis of their natural parlance. But if we are going to argue
FTA, it is disingenuous to do so from any other basis. Then we simply appeal to
popularity of ideas, or have dueling experts, instead of actually arguing
ourselves.
The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)
There
are various forms and views of the basic idea called the anthropic principle. I
will only discuss the weak anthropic principle, as it is the only one that is
part of the objections I am making in this document. WAP basically says that if
the universe had not developed such that life like us would form, then either
no life would be here to wonder and to ask the questions, or another type of
life would have formed to wonder about its surroundings. This is not considered
a satisfactory answer to the FTA on its own. Part of the reason for this is
that WAP is basically a tautology, a statement that must be true, which offers
no new conclusion or information. More than an objection or an answer, I think
that the WAP is a means of framing or considering the FTA problem that highlights
some of the assumptions involved.
One assumption of
FTA proponents is that life like us is the only type of life possible. Even
though we are the only type of life that we know, carbon based and earthbound,
it may well be that other types of life may exist in other parts of our
universe that are not carbon based. At heart, this assumption is about a lack
of imagination and limitations of current knowledge. Just as there could be
other types of life in our universe, there could be other types of universes
capable of creating or supporting some type of life. For example, carbon is
considered to be our basis for life because it is capable of forming complex
bonds with itself and other elements. Silicon is also capable of making similar
bonds. Scientists speculate that silicon is the most likely candidate to be a
basis for types of life that are not carbon based. We should not assume that
other types of life are not possible without reason to think so.
The most basic assumption involved in FTA, and what the WAP addresses most directly, is that the appearance of fine tuning necessarily means that it is fine tuned. It boils down to this question, which is closely related to the first assumption: if the universe were not fine-tuned to produce life, and yet we were here to observe it, how would it look different? In other words, the universe could very well be required to be as it is to produce us, though that is not a certainty (as I will discuss). But if that’s the case, then we should not be surprised to see that it is as it is, considering we are the ones observing it.
The most basic assumption involved in FTA, and what the WAP addresses most directly, is that the appearance of fine tuning necessarily means that it is fine tuned. It boils down to this question, which is closely related to the first assumption: if the universe were not fine-tuned to produce life, and yet we were here to observe it, how would it look different? In other words, the universe could very well be required to be as it is to produce us, though that is not a certainty (as I will discuss). But if that’s the case, then we should not be surprised to see that it is as it is, considering we are the ones observing it.
Another assumption
implicit in the FTA is that the basic physical constants are static through
time and space. Our universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. It is
also thought to have begun and expanded from a single point. This means that it
has expanded for that entire time. Considering that space itself expands and
the expansion is actually accelerating, it is estimated that our visible
universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter. This is only the part of
the universe that we can see. It is not known how large the entire universe may
be, and that’s not even considering possible multiverse scenarios. Now, it is
true that physical constants are assumed to be constant across both space and
time. But this is an assumption, and not without its detractors. If constants
do vary across space and/or time, then one can posit that the part of the
universe that we inhabit has the right parameters for conditions to produce our
kind of life because they have changed over billions of years, until they
reached a point that they produced those conditions. This is more than just
idle speculation. Webb et al. have discovered evidence in our observable
universe that a physical constant called the fine structure constant varies
depending upon which direction in space one looks. 2
3
Conceptions of Cyclic Universes and a Multiverse
I recommend viewing these two short videos
to familiarize yourself with the subject before reading this section
Up
to this point, we’ve only considered objections to claims of fine-tuning
following from the appearance of fine-tuning without appealing to the
possibility of one or more multiverse models. However, whether the appearance
of fine-tuning is actually evidence of actual fine-tuning or not, it’s certain
that many respected physicists believe it to be true, and think that existence
of a multiverse is required to explain this appearance. Therefore, we’ll
briefly examine different types of multiverse models and evidence that supports
that they may exist.
Cyclic Universe
Cyclic Universe
The
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any historically expanding universe like
ours must have a finite border of space-time from which it began. Some
conveniently assume this means that nothing could have existed before this
point. But that is not what the theorem says. There are various proposed
scenarios that would allow for a cyclic universe. I don’t want, as I said to
get overly technical in this paper. So I will leave any arguments on this idea
to the comments section. However, I will post a paper discussing this idea 5. Suffice it for this discussion
to quote Alexander Vilenkin in an interview with the Arizona Atheist:
[I]f someone asks me whether
or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a
beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to
get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get
around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as
special as a beginning.
A similar statement was made to Victor Stenger by
Vilenkin and reproduced in his book on FTA that I mentioned earlier in this
paper.
One special circumstance to
show that an absolute beginning may not be necessary has been to conceptualize
the universe as a sphere or Mobius strip, in that is has no beginning and no
end in itself, but is finite. Another proposed circumstance and visualization
of a cyclic universe involves a symmetric representation of two universes on
each side of a barrier conceived of as the “beginning” of each symmetric
representation, wherein the arrow of time is opposite on each side of the
barrier. This is just one general way to avoid the need for an absolute
beginning. These ideas are not evidential in any way, however. These are
sufficient means to achieve an infinitely existing universe that are not
illogical or contradictory to any known laws.
There are other infinite
cyclical universal existence scenarios that actually are somewhat evidential.
The most interesting, and perhaps the latest one is based upon the standard
model of quantum mechanics, including the mass of the recently found and
confirmed Higgs boson. The calculations based upon this model suggest that the
universe is inherently unstable, and that at some point in the future, a new
universe will form within our existing universe, growing to destroy and
displace it. These examples should suffice to illustrate the concept of a
cyclic universe, though other ideas have been put forth in this vein.
Simultaneously existing Multiverse Conceptions
To
explain various characteristics of our observed universe a phenomenon has been
presented called inflation. Inflation is the idea that the initial expansion of
space/time was much faster than any subsequent expansion. Inflation has been so
helpful to explain what we observe that it has reached a consensus among most
physicists as being the most likely explanation for how our universe behaved in
the first few moments after the Big Bang. In addition to the fact that
inflation could have produced some of the supposed fine tuning parameters as an
artifact of the mechanism, it is also given as a possible source for a
multiverse. In this scenario expansion would end at different times for
different parts of the universe. This uneven expansion would result in many
isolated bubble universes, possibly with different physical characteristics.
Recent data from the Planck
Space Observatory supports the idea that a multiverse may exist. There are
anomalies in the mapping of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that suggest
that there may have been gravitational influences on our observable universe
from outside of it. These influences may be neighboring “bubbles”. This idea is not new. It was suggested
based upon data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which had
mapped the CMB prior to the Planck mapping. The Planck data is more detailed
than the WMAP data, which seems to confirm the anomaly.
Another concept of a
multiverse is what is commonly referred to as the Fecund Universe or Daughter
Universe hypothesis. It is a multifaceted hypothesis. The basic idea is that
black holes spawn new universes, either containing the universe entirely within
itself or being a conduit to a white hole, where the matter that is taken into
a black hole is spewed out. Lee Smolin has suggested that the production of
black holes is the real evolutionary mechanism of successful universes. If
black holes are the key to spawning other universes, then the more black holes
a universe produces, the more successful it is at reproducing “daughter
universes”. Smolin has further suggested that elements produced at the
formation of black holes are elements most necessary for life, Hydrogen,
Oxygen, and Carbon. From this observation, he says that it’s plausible that
life is merely a byproduct of the important characteristics of a universe,
formation of black holes. This is an interesting idea. But it’s entirely
without evidence, and would be difficult to confirm or falsify. It’s a good
example of the size of the gap of ignorance in cosmology, however, that such
diverse ideas could all be put forth as plausible. This point figures
prominently in the overall thrust of this discussion, which is treated in a
section at the end.
Another concept of a
multiverse known as Brane Theory is a result of an interesting fact concerning
String Theory. String Theory (not really a scientific theory at all) is an
attempt by physicists to unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity into a
Grand Unified Theory. The mathematical equations of String Theory have been
shown to have at least 10500 solutions. This means that the proposed
extra dimensions that help determine the physical constants could be arranged
at least this many ways, which suggests that there could be this many separate
universes in the multiverse, all with their own physical constants.
The last major type of
proposed multiverse is proposed as a consequence of a particular interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics. This is known as the Many Worlds Hypothesis. This
suggests that such anomalies as the wave function collapse appear to show that
a particle exists in many different states at once, until observed. The act of
observing it makes it resolve into one of many different possible states. The
hypothesis suggests that it doesn’t simply resolve into one of the states, but
that it resolves into all of the possible states in parallel time streams, only
one of which is the stream of our experienced existence.
Some have suggested that any
and all of these models could be true. If they were all true, then we’d have a
truly staggering number of separate, different, universes. And if any of these
are correct, then that makes the idea of fine-tuning in our universe to appear
to be a ridiculous claim. It should be noted that apart from the evidence
already noted-
1. the success of inflation
theory along with the likelihood of inflation ceasing at different times in
different places due to quantum fluctuation
2. the anomalies in the CMB
3. the many solutions of
String Theory
4. the odd phenomena on the
quantum level,
that there is no experimental evidence for these ideas.
Detractors often attack these ideas as being unscientific for this reason. This
is a fair assessment, given the state of our current ability to test these
hypotheses. It should be noted, however, that these detractors are often the
ones who are most apt to push FTA as evidence of intelligent design, which is
also not a testable scientific idea. Even if one were to accept that our
universe was intelligently designed, how would that further our knowledge of
the processes and characteristics underlying it? This is why the scientific method works from a basis of
methodological naturalism: supernaturalism would not further understanding of
natural processes. Also, it is feasible and even likely that in the not too
distant future we will be able to test the existence of at least some
multiverse models. I’m not certain how we’d test whether or not our universe is
intelligently designed.
Closing
Remarks
The main problem I see with
the FTA is that it is a philosophical argument dependent upon an interpretation
of scientific data. This data is part of a discipline that is shot with large
gaps of ignorance and ad hoc hypotheses to shore up these gaps. Physics is a
model that is intended to represent reality. But it is only a model, and an
imperfect one. We have learned much and we probably have a great deal of true
knowledge concerning cosmology. But to claim that the appearance of fine-tuning
based upon this imperfect model shows that the universe must have been designed
seems to be fallacious in a complimentary type of fallacy to that of appeal to
ignorance. Appeal to ignorance says, “we don’t know, so my preferred
explanation is possible”. This argument fails in that it fails to recognize
ignorance. It overstates the certainty of the model that we use, and
understates the gaps of knowledge that we have. This is the wide heading under
which failures mentioned above fall.
Let’s suppose that we allow,
for argument’s sake, that the universe is intelligently designed. There are
things that we can infer from the past, present, and future of the observable
universe that speak to what this designer may be like. First, the designer
seems to have wasted a lot of space. The observable universe is approximately
93 billion light years in diameter, most of this is relatively empty space,
with approximately 100 billion galaxies consisting of an average of 100 billion
stars per galaxy. Many of these stars have planetary systems. Yet most advocates of FTA seem to think
that we humans are central to the designer’s plan. If that is the case, one has
to wonder why the majority of the universe would not support our life. Our
planet in our solar system is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the universe that
we can see. So, why is the universe as large as it is?
Second, our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. From this beginning, it took about 9 billion years for our solar system to form. It took about 10 billion years for life to begin on our planet. It took about 13.5 billion years for humans to evolve. This incredibly long period of time for the supposed goal of creation to appear doesn’t seem to support the importance of our species to this designer.
Second, our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. From this beginning, it took about 9 billion years for our solar system to form. It took about 10 billion years for life to begin on our planet. It took about 13.5 billion years for humans to evolve. This incredibly long period of time for the supposed goal of creation to appear doesn’t seem to support the importance of our species to this designer.
Third, there are apparent
imperfections in the design of life itself. For example, the sensory systems of
humans are not optimized to accurately sense the environment around us. Our
eyes have a hole in the retina, where the optic nerve travels from the eye back
into the brain. We fill these holes in from the surrounding scene in the visual
field during the perception stage. We are not even aware that these holes are
there. To be able to articulate
the sounds of our language, our risk of choking increased beyond that of most
other animals, because the
entrance of our esophagus and our trachea are so close together. There are
other examples, but these should suffice.
Finally, the most
problematic aspect of our experience for the type of designer that we’d like to
imagine is the apparent fact that this designer is trying to kill us. Since the
advent of life on Earth, there have been 5 major near extinction events, plus
many other smaller but still devastating catastrophes. It is estimated that
over 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. With the exception
of plants, that get their energy straight from the Sun, life on earth must take
energy from other life by eating plants and/or animals. This sets up a
miserable existence of struggle and death for the majority of animals. Today,
in our experience, we face many different natural disasters that take tens,
hundreds, and even thousands of lives.
From the former body of
evidence, it seems that any designer that may exist is wasteful in both space
and time, inefficient in designing, and at best absent from its design or capricious,
and at worst bloodthirsty.
Sources
