it most certainly is.
Is the Universe fine-tuned for life?
Two of the answers add a dimension to physics that doesn’t belong there.
Maybe we could call it "astrotheology."
It is often argued that our existence in the Universe is no accident and that the Universe is fine-tuned for life. But what do we really mean by fine-tuned? Is fine-tuning due to a new (unknown) set of laws of nature or some supernatural or otherwise unknowable fine-tuner? Can physics really answer this question in a scientific manner?
(No)
Or are we creating a story where there isn’t one?
(Oh theres a story here alright.
The one they dont want you to know about.)
"If you follow the writings and ideas of many theoretical physicists and scientific magazines and publications, you surely have come across a statement that goes somewhat like this: “The Universe is fine-tuned for life. If you look at the constants of nature, like the mass of the electron and the quarks, the strength of the gravitational or strong nuclear force, and many other constants that physicists use to describe natural phenomena, you realize that their values are such that, if tweaked by even a tiny bit, life in the Universe wouldn’t be possible. So, the universe, or the constants of nature, must be fine-tuned for life to be here.”
(Yep.)
It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life to exist. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities: (1) It’s just an accident — that is, the Universe is what it is, and we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) there is a “fine-tuner,” and what you call this “fine-tuner” is up to you, be it God or panpsychism (see my conversation last week with philosopher Philip Goff), and the Universe’s purpose is to have intelligent life; or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our Universe just happens to be the one where things work out for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you had better embrace the multiverse.
Couple problems here.
Taking them one by one.
1) These are ALL accidents?
The problem with positing some kind of fine-tuner, be it supernatural or panpsychic, is that we cannot prove it. So, we must take this as an article of faith.
(Exactly, that you can not "prove it"
is by...
wait for it
...........................
Design.
Multiverse cant be proven either
so it also requires acceptance as an article of faith.
Im sorry they got an ancient text?
Millions of changed lives?
and 2000 year old predictions coming true RN?
Use your logical brain God gave you for goodness sakes.)
A multiverse of problems
(Agreed BTW)
That is why so many scientists embrace the third choice, the multiverse. If you reduce
the issue of the values of the fundamental constants
(Notice what is being avoided right here.
Discernment, knowing what is being said by what's not being said
All thats is being talked about is:
"the issue of the values of the fundamental constants"
Nothing not one word about initial conditions
(Of both the big bang and the natural laws)
or how the information got in the DNA molecule
violating the laws of physics in the process.)
to a cosmic lottery, then essentially you are pushing the problem to probabilities. There is a multitude of possible universes out there, each with different values of the constants of nature, and ours happens to be the one where things work out for stars and planets to exist, and for biochemistry to have emerged on at least this planet of ours, possibly many more. The multiverse implicitly assumes that there is some kind of metric to determine the different probabilities for universes to exist with different values for the fundamental constants, even though we have no clue how to establish this comparison."
"Even if inflation is the right model for the early Universe, and it could be, the problem is that we cannot ever know if the multiverse exists or not, given that other universes are outside the bubble of information we call the cosmic horizon. So, in practice, the multiverse amounts to a solution of the fine-tuning problem that is not that much different than the supernatural or panpsychic proposals of the second possibility — something that possibly exists but cannot be verified to exist. The multiverse is an article of faith. The hardest challenge in speculative theoretical physics is to discern between the allure of a beautiful idea and what it takes to have it be part of the real world."
There is no fine-tuning problem
(Oh but there is...)
This leaves us with the first choice for the fine-tuning problem, which simply states that there is no fine-tuning problem. If we take a historical approach to how our current physical picture of the Universe was built, we realize that the constants of nature are measured parameters we use to create models that describe what we see. We measure the mass and charge of the electron, or the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the masses of the quarks, and then use these values in models that describe how particles and objects interact with each other. It is obvious — and rather unsurprising — that the only reason we can measure these values is because we are here."
"Any model of the physical Universe needs to start with some value of a parameter that establishes the energy scale at which this model operates."
(Where did the energy come from then?)
Astrotheology
So, is the Universe fine-tuned or not for life? Given that we have no evidence of life elsewhere, and that it is conceptually impossible in physics to calculate the constants of nature from “first principles” without other in-built assumptions, it seems that answers to the fine-tuning problem that call either for a fine-tuner or the multiverse are trying to add a dimension to physics that doesn’t belong there. Maybe we could call it astrotheology — which would be fine with me, but it’s not really physics as we know it."
Im going to conceed for a moment and assume as stated above that there is no
"Fine tuning problem"
even though I believe that there is.
I got two questions:
1) Where did the initial conditions
for the laws of nature
and
the big bang come from?
2) How did information get in the DNA molecule,
violating the laws of physics?
Of the three choices listed above?
Only one has an ancient text thats
being proven true right in front of your faces right now.
(Superintelligence is here).
It explains where the energy came from thats needed.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God
CREATED
the heavens and the earth.
It also explains how the information got in the DNA molecule.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the word
and the word was with god
and the word was God.
Thats an ancient text being proven true RN.
Millions of changed lives for those that can renew their minds.
The energy to get things started
(First cause)
And the ability to get the information in the DNA molecule at will.
Whats the other choices got?
And notice
Initial conditions
and brute force facts
are left out of the discussion.
I wonder why?
Put it all together and the evidence is overwhelming.
And I like
Marcelo Gleiser BTW
him and Brian Cox.
Most of the others in this field?
Not so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment