Recently my focus has shifted to analyzing arguments on a much deeper level. The first product of this new level of searching is my Honors Thesis on the Fine-Tuning Argument. To transform this into blog format, I have made a few very minor edits (including the very-exciting alternate title). If you have a bit of time, I hope you will enjoy reading. -JTS
A Biologist’s Perspective on the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for the
Origin of Life, with an Emphasis on the Scholarly Conversation Between Dr.
Victor J. Stenger and Dr. Luke A. Barnes
OR
Tearing the Mask off Nature to Look at the Face of God
OR
Breaking the 4th Wall... of Space...
by
Joshua O. Willms
AN HONORS THESIS
for the
UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE
Submitted to the
University Honors College
at Texas Tech University in
partial fulfillment of the
requirement for
the degree designation of
HIGHEST HONORS
MAY 2014
ABSTRACT
Over
the past one hundred years, physicists and cosmologists have begun to notice
that if certain fundamental characteristics of our universe had been anything
other than what they are, life in our universe could not exist. Examples of
these characteristics, called “parameters,” include the gravitational constant,
the cosmological constant, Planck’s constant, and the speed of light. The
general consensus of the scientific community is that these parameters are
finely tuned for life, meaning that miniscule variations in the parameters
would have rendered the universe unable to support life. There is significant
debate, however, on the interpretation of this information. Dr. Victor Stenger
and postdoctoral fellow Luke A. Barnes have engaged in the most modern and
scientifically informed version of this conversation. In this work, I will
provide a biologist’s perspective on a topic largely dominated by physicists. I
argue that the target for fine tuning is not our kind of life specifically, but
rather abiogenesis. In addition, due to the Normalization Problem, it is
impossible to quantify fine-tuning. I conclude that our universe is
qualitatively fine-tuned.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would like to thank Marjean, James, Aimee, Alex, Brandon, Lori, Scott, the Texas Tech
University Honors College, and Micah.
~For Neil~
Thank you for helping me develop an
open mind for an honest search.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSRACT...................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF
CONTENTS............................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION TO
FINE-TUNING......................................................................... Purpose........................................................................................................................... 6
Defining
Life.................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 1: Summary of the Debate between Stenger and
Barnes........................... 10
Dr.
Stenger’s Arguments................................................................................................ 10
Dr.
Barnes’ Arguments................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2: Counter to The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.................................................. 16
Section
1: Arguments which increase the area of parameter space............................... 19
Section
2: Arguments which decrease the total area of parameter space...................... 23
Section
3: Arguments which decrease the number of dimensions in parameter space.. 25
CHAPTER 3: Counter to Popular Objections to Fine-Tuning...................................... 30
Fine-Tuning
vs. Intelligent Design (Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson)..................................... 30
The
Multiverse (Dr. Brian Greene)................................................................................ 33
Cosmic
Natural Selection (Dr. Lawrence Krauss)......................................................... 37
CHAPTER 4: The Normalization Problem................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions............................................................................................ 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A
graphical representation of parameter space...............................................
4
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1: The list of
physical and cosmological parameters used by Barnes................ 6
Figure 2: Stenger’s
Summary of his Arguments (Fallacy 293)................................... 17
Figure 3: The Analogy of
15 Lotteries........................................................................ 18
Figure 4: Ways to Refute
Fine-Tuning......................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Explanation of
the normalization problem utilizing the lottery analogy...... 41
Introduction
to Fine-Tuning
Over
the past one hundred years, physicists and cosmologists have begun to notice
that if certain fundamental characteristics of our universe had been varied in
their numerical value, the evolution of life in our universe would have been
impossible. Examples of these characteristics, called parameters, include the
gravitational constant, the cosmological constant, Planck’s constant, and the
speed of light. The general consensus of the scientific community at this point
is that these parameters are finely tuned (FT) for life (Barnes 7), meaning
that miniscule variations in the parameters would have rendered the universe
unable to support the evolution of any kind of life.
In
2011, Dr. Victor Stenger, of the University of Colorado, published The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe
is Not Designed for Us, which I will hereafter refer to as Fallacy. In this work, Dr. Stenger
attempts to refute the idea that the universe has been fine-tuned for life
without relying upon the multiverse (the most common objection to FT). Shortly
after publishing Fallacy,
postdoctoral fellow Luke A. Barnes, of the University of Sydney, published a
critical review of Stenger’s work, The
Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life in favor of FT. Stenger
has responded to Barnes in Defending the
Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, which I will hereafter refer to as Defending Fallacy, submitted to the
online archive arXiv in January of 2012. Two of Stenger’s primary objections to
Barnes’ work were that Stenger was targeting a popular audience, not a
scholarly one, and that the two were merely interpreting the same information
in different ways. This micro-conversation between Stenger and Barnes is the
most modern and scientifically informed version of a debate that has been
raging for the past one hundred years.
For
the purposes of this discussion, I will adopt the definition of FT used by
Barnes in his review paper “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent
Life.”
FT:
In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is
very small.
Within
Barnes’ definition, the word ‘physics’ refers to “the laws of nature, initial
conditions, and physical constants of a particular universe” (2). I will
further refine this definition to include the true target of FT, an origin
event.
FT: Out
of the set of possible physics, the subset that permit at least one origin of
life per universe is very small.
The
reasoning of FT can be used with reference to our universe even though other
universes and physics have not been observed. Consider the following analogy: if
I buy a single ticket, I will almost certainly fail to win the lottery. If I do
win, my success can reasonably be explained by blind chance due to the large
number of lottery tickets that are bought in each game of the lottery. If the
odds of winning the lottery are one in ten million, and ten million people buy
lottery tickets, there is no surprise if someone wins. However, in the case of
our universe, only one ticket has been bought. If only one person bought a
lottery ticket, and won, it would be more reasonable to assume that the game
was rigged than that a solitary ticket was the one in ten million.
Additionally,
if fifteen separate games of the lottery are played, and a single individual
buys a single ticket in each game (no other individuals buy tickets), the odds
become unimaginably unlikely that this individual will win every game. If the
individual did win every game, it would be more reasonable to assume that the
games were rigged than to assume that this person won purely by chance.
To
phrase this analogy in terms of Barnes’ definition of FT: Out of the set of
possible lottery tickets, the subset of tickets which will allow a single
individual to win fifteen separate games after buying one ticket for each game
is vanishingly small.
The
obvious solution to the huge improbability of a single person winning the
lottery fifteen times is for that person to buy an immense number of tickets.
If there existed many universes, the sum total of which would form a
universe-ensemble, or multiverse, then the apparent FT of our universe becomes
easily explained (assuming that the number of universes is great and that
parameters vary from universe to universe). Due to the lack of empirical
evidence for the multiverse and string theory (string theory, if true, may
imply a multiverse), I will refrain from addressing the multiverse as a viable
counter to FT in this document (Greene). In addition, Stenger refrains from
utilizing the multiverse as an argument in Fallacy.
Stenger explains the basic idea of FT in The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. He does so
by postulating a universe with two parameters, P1 and P2, and mapping their
possible values in a corresponding parameter space. The following diagram is an
adaptation from his original figure.
Figure 1: A graphical representation of
parameter space.
In
this example universe, P1 and P2 could take on values ranging from positive to
negative infinity, meaning that there is no limit upon the range of values for
P1 and P2. The light blue rectangle represents all of parameter space for P1
and P2. The dark blue section of the rectangle represents the region of parameter
space which will allow for some kind of life. The green dot inside of the
life-permitting region represents the region of parameter space corresponding
to the values they have in our universe. According to Stenger, “In the
fine-tuning view, there is no wedge and the point has infinitesimal area, so
the probability of finding life is zero… Now, it would seem that the
probability is also zero when the parameter space is unlimited and A1 is
infinite. However, in that case, the wedge area A2 is also infinite. The
probability can then be estimated by just taking the ratio of areas in the
quadrant. Even a probability of a few percent undermines the fine-tuning
hypothesis, which rests on probability numbers more like 1 in 10^120” (Fallacy 71). While Stenger gives no
justification for his statement, “a probability of a few percent undermines the
fine-tuning hypothesis,” and it is simply false that the fine-tuning view holds
that the point has infinitesimal area, his explanation of FT in general in
nonetheless useful.
When examining FT parameters, we can add extra dimensions
to formulate an n-dimension ‘wedge’ to compare with the surrounding parameter
space. In this way, the range of potential values for gravity, the speed of
light, the inflation rate of the universe, Planck’s constant, and any other
parameters being examined each represent a single dimension in an n-dimension
parameter space. The entirely of this area constitutes the specific region of
parameter space which will allow for the evolution of life.
Barnes
utilizes the following table (Table 1) from Burgess and Moore as a template for
the “fundamental and derived physical and cosmological parameters” (5).
Table 1: The list of physical and
cosmological parameters used by Barnes in The
Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life, which is taken from
Burgess & Morre (2006). Each value is a candidate for FT, although only a
select few will be addressed in this document.
In
this discussion, I will focus my attention on four of these parameters: the
speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, and the
Cosmological constant. I will not attempt, as do most FT proponents, to
demonstrate that the odds of the universe being FT for at least one origin of
life are astronomically low. Instead, I will only seek to demonstrate whether
or not the chances of the universe being FT for at least one origin event
should be categorized as “likely” or “unlikely.”
Purpose
The
purpose of this Honors thesis is to engage popular and scientific arguments for
and against FT in order to develop the most up-to-date picture of whether or
not our universe is FT. First, I will provide a critical review of the
scholarly conversation between Dr. Victor Stenger and Dr. Luke Barnes (Stenger
is against FT, Barnes is for it). Second, I will engage several popular
responses to Fine Tuning from popular physicists Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian
Greene, and Lawrence Krauss. Third, I will examine what I believe to be the
only true counter to FT, the Normalization Problem, which makes it impossible
to quantify FT. Fourth, I will respond to the Normalization Problem by relying
on the insight of philosopher Alvin Plantinga. And finally, I will come to a
conclusion concerning whether or not our universe is FT for life based upon our
best current understanding of physics.
In
Stenger’s response to The Fine-Tuning of
the Universe for Intelligent Life, he cites the difference in audience as
one of the main points of contention between himself and Barnes.
Postdoctoral
fellow Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the
scientific literature concerning the fine-tuning problem titled ‘The
Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life’. The Fallacy of
Fine-Tuning did not address the scientific literature. Barnes’ paper is
written for experts in the field, who were not my intended audience and with
whom I have no significant scientific disagreements (Defending Fallacy 2).
Because Barnes
responded to Stenger at the scholarly level, an appropriate review of Stenger’s
work has not been generated for the purpose of public understanding. This
thesis will provide a critical review of the works of Stenger and Barnes on the
topic of FT on the level Stenger chose for his target audience.
Finally, a topic
of paramount importance for the debate on FT which has been discussed by
neither Stenger nor Barnes is the origin of life. Both have correctly
recognized that FT applies to the evolution of life rather than to the
existence of life in general. This insight increases the flexibility of
parameters, because the parameters need not be FT for our kind of life
specifically, but for the evolution of any kind of life. I will refine this
line of thinking even further by establishing that an origin of life event (abiogenesis)
is the key point of interest. Origin events are less understood than evolution
in general, but we can infer that the flexibility of parameters will once again
be increased. The specific targets of FT are origin events, which will
subsequently be followed by periods of evolution.
Defining Life
To
understand FT, it is essential to understand the area of parameter space in
which we are interested. We don’t know how hard it is to hit a target unless we
know how large the target is; therefore, we need to define life as it will be
discussed in this debate. Due to the broad diversity of life on our planet
alone, it is excruciatingly difficult to provide an accurate definition for
life that will apply to all organisms. Instead of nailing down an exact
definition, it is more helpful to create of list of properties which generally
distinguish between the animate and the inanimate. Campbell and Reece suggest
the following emergent properties for life: order, evolutionary adaptation,
response to the environment, regulation, energy processing, growth,
development, and reproduction. I would add a final property common to all life:
information. While these guiding principles certainly are useful in most cases,
the line between life and non-life greys when one considers the existence of
entities such as viruses and prions, both of which express a limited number of
the properties of life. While the intuition to recognize living organisms is
deeply engrained within all of us, it is essential for the purposes of this
thesis to determine what life is, so that the factors necessary for the origin
of life can be identified.
For
the purposes of the FT debate, life includes, but is not limited to, every type
of organism that has ever inhabited earth. I say “but is not limited to,”
because had starting conditions or environmental changes which drove evolution
all along the way varied, different organisms would have been generated via
natural selection. Abiogenesis could have taken place with radically different
results as well. Thus, any list of living organisms must include the caveat
that alternative organisms could have been generated, and should be included
within our definition of life.
Assuming that a single entity (living, not
living, or somewhere in between) that existed on Earth some 3.4 billion years
ago is the common ancestor of every living organism ever to have existed on
planet earth, life can be defined in terms of genealogy. Every descendent of
the common ancestor which has been produced is considered “life.” As with the
previous definition, differential starting points and environmental forces
driving evolution could have been present, which would have altered the
identity of the living organisms.
For
the purposes of this thesis, I will use the definition of genealogy. This is
because the “target” of FT is abiogenesis, as opposed to one particular form of
life (i.e., salamanders). Evolution allows for flexibility in form, but
evolution cannot take place unless a prime common ancestor arises.
Chapter
1: Summary of the Debate between Stenger and Barnes
Dr. Stenger begins Fallacy
by introducing readers to the culture of conversation surrounding FT, including
a brief discussion of non-overlapping magisterium, natural theology, Darwinism,
and intelligent design (ID). Next, he includes a brief background section on
the history of FT, the anthropic principle, scientific modeling, the nature of
space-time, and the meaning of parameters as they pertain to FT. At this point,
he introduces his first argument on the speed of light, c. Stenger argues that
c cannot be FT because its value can take on any value scientists prefer by
changing the units. Using the same basic principle, Stenger attempts to demonstrate
the arbitrary nature of Planck’s constant and the gravitation constant. Because
Barnes chooses not to address the issue of the speed of light in detail, an in-depth
discussion of Dr. Stenger’s argument concerning c will be included in the next
section.
While Fallacy
is directed towards a popular audience, a significant level of understanding
concerning physics and cosmology is essential for grasping Stenger’s arguments.
For the purpose of simplification and communication, I will break down
Stenger’s arguments into five sections, labeled S1-S5. In response to Fallacy, Dr. Luke A. Barnes wrote The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for
Intelligent Life, a document designed to refute Dr. Stenger’s contention
that our universe does not display FT. I will outline Barnes’ responses to each
of Stenger’s arguments with labels B1-B5. After Dr. Barnes published The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for
Intelligent Life, Dr. Stenger uploaded a short counter response to B1-B5.
Dr.
Stenger’s Arguments
S1:
Point-of-View Invariance (PoVI)
According
to Dr. Stenger, “The models of physics cannot depend on the point of view of
the observer” (Defending Fallacy 5).
This means that in order to describe reality, physicists choose not to develop
models which will only apply to the universe if a specific point of view is
adopted. As an example, consider a meteor falling straight towards the surface
of the earth. If a person on earth observes the meteor, she will conclude that
it is moving at a certain velocity towards earth. If, on the other hand, this
person happens to be sky-diving in the same direction and with the same speed
as the meteor, the meteor will appear to be motionless. To describe the motion
of the meteor relative to the observer is not useful for describing the true
nature of the situation. It is far better to describe the meteor using a model
that is PoVI.
Dr.
Stenger states that the necessity of the models of physics being PoVI allows us
to derive “all of classical physics, including classical mechanics, Newton’s
law of gravity, and Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism” (Fallacy 88). Dr. Stenger uses this
statement to argue that PoVI is fundamental to certain parameters, making it
impossible for them to be FT. These parameters quite simply could not be
anything other than what they are, otherwise they would cease to be PoVI.
S2:
The Nature of Gravity
According
to Dr. Stenger, the force of gravity is a fictitious force, just like
centrifugal and Coriolis forces. This is because gravity will ‘disappear’
depending on the frame of reference of the observer. Consider an astronaut inside
of a shuttle orbiting earth. From the point of view of the astronaut, there is
no gravity, and there is no way to know what point of view is the correct one
to have. Further, according to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, there
is no gravitational force. The planets orbiting the sun, for example, are not
attracted to the sun ‘pulling’ them—instead masses distort the shape of space
and orbiting planets are actually moving straight in a curved space. Stenger’s
final argument is that “[P]hysicists have to put gravity into any model of the
universe that contains separate masses. A universe with separated masses and no
gravity would violate point-of-view invariance” (Fallacy 80).
S3:
Entropy
The
second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system
never decreases. If we take the entire universe to be an isolated system, then
our universe will always be traveling in the direction of thermodynamic
equilibrium, or heat death. Dr. Stenger brings up a potential exception to this
rule by pointing out that “black holes have an entropy equal to a quarter of
their event horizons” (Fallacy 111).
In the case of black holes, the gravitational force allows for a volume of
space to have “maximal entropy and still contain very low entropy as compared
to the visible universe” (Defending
Fallacy 7). The implication of this
argument is that the entire universe, which started out as a singularity, could
begin with maximal entropy and contain low entropy arrangements.
S4:
Stellar Nucleosynthesis
One
characteristic of any universe that has the ability to allow for origin events
to take place is the existence of heavy elements. In our physics, heavy element
formation takes place via fusion in the super-hot furnaces of supernovas. The
extreme pressure and heat levels inside of stars ignite fusion reactions with
hydrogen and helium atoms, causing them to join together in various
combinations to form the elements making up our periodic table. Dr. Stenger and
Dr. Barnes are primarily concerned with carbon and oxygen, elements which are
especially conducive to the evolution of life.
According
to Dr. Stenger, “[A] good case can be made that no fine-tuning was necessary to
produce sufficient carbon for life by way of stellar nucleosynthesis…
[C]osmologies are possible in which all the elements are produced primordially
in a cold big bang with no need for the Hoyle resonance or any stellar
nucleosynthesis” (Fallacy 172-173).
Basically, Dr. Stenger is attempting to show that there are multiple regions of
parameter space which will allow for heavily elements to be generated, even if
the process differs from the stellar fusion that takes place in our universe.
S5:
Expansion Rate of the Universe
The
expansion rate of the universe is often claimed to be FT for origin events. Dr.
Stenger quotes a passage from Dr. Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time to propose an alternate solution: “The rate
of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the
critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then
explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate,
without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was
very carefully chosen” (Defending Fallacy
8). In other words, the expansion rate of the universe could not have been
anything other than what it is because of limitations imposed by inflationary
theory.
Dr.
Barnes’ Arguments
B1:
Point-of-View Invariance
Dr.
Barnes responds to Dr. Stenger’s contentions concerning PoVI by reformulating
Dr. Stenger’s argument:
LN1. If our formulation of the laws
of nature is to be objective, it must be PoVI.
LN2. Invariance implies conserved
quantities (Noether’s theorem).
LN3. Thus, ‘when our models do not
depend on a particular point or direction in space or a particular moment in
time, then those models must necessarily
contain the quantities linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, all of
which are conserved. Physicists have no choice in the matter, or else their
models will be subjective, that is, will give uselessly different results for
every different point of view. And so the conservation principles are not laws
built into the universe or handed down by deity to govern the behavior of
matter. They are principles governing the behavior of physicists’” (Fallacy 82).
Dr. Barnes then points
out that the meaning of the word “invariant” has changed within Dr. Stenger’s
line of reasoning, resulting in an error of equivocation. While physicists
certainly need to formulate models that exhibit PoVI, they also need to use
scientific equipment to take measurements and develop physics. It takes more
than the knowledge that physics must appear the same from every point of view
to determine the strength of gravity or the rate of expansion of the universe.
B2:
The Nature of Gravity
Dr.
Barnes responds to Dr. Stenger’s argument that gravity is fictitious by first
pointing out that universes with separate masses can exist without a
gravitational force: “Special relativity is perfectly able to preserve
invariance between reference frames accelerating with respect to one another.
Physicists clearly don’t have to put gravity into any model of the universe
that contains separate masses” (12). The easiest way to demonstrate this point
is to set G = 0 for our universe. Dr. Barnes points out that if we set the
gravitational force equal to zero, while this would radically change our
universe, we would still have a universe.
Although
gravity as a phenomenon may not be what we typically consider it to be on a day-to-day
basis, the quality of attractiveness between masses exists in some way in our
universe. The explanation for this—either that masses attract one another or
that masses curve space—does not change the fact that ‘gravity’ exists and
could have been something other than what it is. More specifically, in the case
that gravity is just an extension of space being warped, then the degree to
which space is warped by a certain amount of mass displays FT.
B3:
Entropy
Dr.
Barnes responds to Dr. Stenger’s argument concerning the entropy of the
universe by pointing out that there is no reason to apply reasoning which is
valid concerning black holes and apply it to the entirety of our universe:
“Applying the Bekenstein limit to a cosmological spacetime is not nearly as
straightforward as Stenger implies. The Bekenstein limit applies to the event horizon of a black hole. The
Hubble radius… is not any kind of horizon… There is no causal limit associated
with the Hubble radius as information and particles can pass both ways” (24).
Without a logical connection between the event horizon of black holes and the
radius of the universe, there is no reason to assume that the universe could
have simultaneously maximal and low entropy.
B4:
Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Dr.
Barnes counters by pointing out that stellar fusion is absolutely necessary for
the generation of carbon and oxygen, and that it is particularly notable that
stars in our universe can produce both,
as opposed to just one or the other. Dr. Stenger notes that other parameters
could be adjusted to allow for additional scenarios in which heavy elements
could be synthesized. In response to this Dr. Barnes points out that any value
for G that is equal to or below zero cannot result in a universe which is FT: “A
logarithmic axis, by placing G = 0 at negative infinity, puts an infinitely
large region of parameter space outside of the life-permitting region. Stable
stars would then require infinite fine-tuning” (40). By opening up more
parameter space to allow for more life-permitting regions, Dr. Stenger has
inadvertently opened up even more
parameter space which does not allow for origin events to take place.
B5:
Expansion Rate of the Universe
In
response to Dr. Stenger’s argument that the expansion rate of the universe is
not FT because it is caused by inflation, Dr. Barnes points out that the
physics underlying inflation becomes the target of FT. If inflation took place
during the early stages of our universe, Barnes points out that an inflation
field must exist, start to expand, last a sufficient length of time, come to an
end in the correct way, and set up the right density perturbations. If the
expansion rate is not FT because inflation dictates the expansion rate, then
inflation itself if FT. Explaining away one parameter by introducing another
does not change the proportion of parameter space which will allow for origin
events to take place.
Chapter 2: Counter to The Fallacy
of Fine-Tuning
In
this section, I will respond to Stenger at a popular level, the level that Fallacy was intended for. Because
Stenger has emphasized that critics of his work misrepresent and misunderstand
his arguments, I will quote heavily from his work to ensure accurate representation.
In
the final conclusion of Fallacy,
Stenger lists ten errors made by proponents of FT. I have included the entire
list for the sake of accuracy (Table 2). Each point represents a possible way
in which FT could be called into question.
I will categorize
Stenger’s contentions into the following categories: A) arguments which
increase the area of parameter space that allows for life, B) arguments which
decrease the total area of parameter space, and C) arguments which decrease the
number of dimensions in parameter space. It is important to classify the
arguments in this way, because each class will be responded to with specific types
of arguments.
Recall the analogy of winning the lottery. For the
purposes of ensuring accurate communication, I will now meticulously expand
upon this analogy so that it may be used as a platform from which to examine
every category of argument Stenger presents.
In our discussion of FT,
the thought process used in my analogy applies, not the specific numbers. In addition,
in FT it is possible for the rules of the game to change. In order for the
apparent FT of our universe to be refuted by Stenger, he must demonstrate one
of the following things: there are more universes (additional ticket purchases),
there is greater flexibility concerning which parameter values will allow for
origin events than is currently accepted (allowing a range of winning numbers
for each slot instead of allowing only one), there is a smaller area of total
parameter space (playing games of ‘5-from-49’ or ‘4-from-49’), or there are
fewer parameters which must be FT (decreasing the number of games that Georges
plays).
Keep
in mind that in reality, there is a range of values for parameters within our
universe (the analogy breaks down when Georges picks a single number for a
slot- the analogy would be improved by allowing Georges to select a range of
numbers). FT proponents simply claim that this area within parameter space is
extremely small compared to the entirety of parameter space.
In Fallacy, Stenger touches upon each of these possibilities, except
for increasing the number of universes.
Section
1: Arguments which increase the area of parameter space that allows for life
(Stenger’s 1, 5, and 8)
According to Stenger, proponents of FT “make fine-tuning
claims based on the parameters of our universe and our form of life, ignoring
the possibility of other life-forms” (Fallacy
293). While this may have been the case forty years ago, no serious
proponent of FT will attempt to defend such a view today. If any do, I disagree
with them as much as Stenger. Because of the plasticity of life, especially in
light of evolutionary processes, it is far better to examine the FT of the
universe for origin events.
Targeting origin events, as opposed to our earthly form
of life, certainly does increase the parameter space that allows for life. In
this respect, I am in agreement with Dr. Stenger. However, as Professor Richard
Dawkins has stated, “however many ways there may be of being alive, it is
certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive” (Blind Watchmaker 9). Origin events
require heavy elements, the most important of which is carbon. While silicon
certainly is another possibility, it is not nearly as suitable for the
requirements of life as carbon is. Additionally, silicon has more than twice
the number of protons than carbon does, making it far more unlikely to be
generated from solar fusion in any universe. A third possibility would be germanium,
but because germanium has more protons than does Iron, we would be even less
likely to suspect that germanium could be used as a backbone for organic
molecules.
Even if we allow for origin events which utilize silicon
and germanium, there will be far more origin events that occur via carbon based
molecules. This is not because of anthropic bias. It is simply because carbon
is a far superior element when it comes to making stable chains with multiple
locations for the attachment and interaction of secondary elements.
Because the relevant parameters of FT target properties
of the universe that are “all or nothing,” allowing for any type of origin
event makes almost no difference in our overall probability. If a universe is
made of only hydrogen and helium, no origin events can take place. Additionally,
it would be impossible for an origin event to take place inside of a black hole.
While there may be numerous other forms of life that are possible,
acknowledging these possibilities are so negligible as to be irrelevant for the
FT discussion.
One of Stenger’s viable arguments comes from his fifth
Final Conclusion. He states that there is a wide range of values for the energy
level of an excited nucleus of carbon. This is an excellent argument against FT
because it contains every requirement. He targets a property of the universe
that is essential for the origin of any form of life (the generation of carbon
via solar fusion), and sufficiently demonstrates that the area of parameter
space for the energy level of an excited nucleus of carbon could take on many
vales, as opposed to a few. This effectively increases the ratio of life
permitting area to the total area of parameter space, making it solidly
reasonable to assume that carbon could be found in a sufficiently large number
of universes in which stars can form.
Keep in mind that while Stenger has decreased the overall
strength of FT with this information, it by no means refutes the entire
argument. He has reduced the surprise that a reasonable observer would have at
the generation of carbon within our universe within the set of possible
universes, nothing more.
One of the most serious mistakes Stenger makes is the
following statement: “They make a serious analytical mistake in always taking
all the parameters in the universe to be fixed and varying only one at a time.
This fails to account for the fact that a change in one parameter can be
compensated for by a change in another, opening up more parameter space for a
viable universe” (Fallacy 294).
Stenger’s argument at this point is multiply errant.
First, it is quite simply not a serious analytical mistake to always take every parameter to
be fixed and vary one at a time. To the contrary, until we have the ability to
generate or observe other universes, one of the best ways to get a picture of
what alternate universes are like is to hold everything else constant and vary
one parameter at a time. This is the approach taken in every field of science
when accurate information is being gathered with regards to nature. Multiple
parameters certainly should be taken into account at the same time whenever
possible, but we can and do gain meaningful information by varying one at a
time on a regular basis.
In
an experiment of mine done in 2013, I examined the effects of pH and hypoxia on
a species of fish, Atlantic croaker.
Note that in my experiment, two parameters were being examined, as
opposed to one. Instead of utilizing just two groups—a single control group and
a single treatment group (in which both pH and dissolved oxygen concentration
would be lowered), we utilized three treatment groups in addition to a control.
The three treatment groups were aligned as follows: Group A with lowered pH
only, Group B with lowered dO only, and Group C with both parameters only.
The
degree of acidity (pH) and dissolved oxygen concentration certainly do have an
effect on one another, but examining one at a time is not only helpful for
running the experiment, but essential for conducting good science. In most
experiments, a single variable is changed, data are collected, and conclusions
are drawn. This is one of the most fundamental assumptions made by scientists.
Keep
in mind that both ocean acidity and hypoxia separately have a negative effect
on the well-being of Atlantic croaker. If both separately have a negative
effect, we would not think that placing Atlantic croaker in an environment that
is both acidic and hypoxic would somehow have the opposite effect. While it
certainly is important to examine parameters in concert, it is safe to say that
in general, when one parameter moves quickly away from a life permitting zone,
it is better to assume that the entirety of parameter space does not reverse
directions just outside of the reach of our scientific instruments. Even if it
did, what we would say right now is that FT appears to be valid based off of
our best current understanding of the universe. Setting an organism on fire and throwing it off a cliff, as opposed
to setting it on fire alone or throwing it off a cliff alone, will rarely have
a positive influence on the life expectancy of the organism.
The
second problem with Stenger’s statement is that it directly works against him.
Can certain parameters vary to make up for others? Absolutely! But if we allow
for the addition of an entirely new parameter, the odds against FT due to chance
are greatly magnified. Remember the analogy of 15 lotteries. Adding an extra
parameter to compensate for the non-life-permitting range of another is the
same as saying that Georges must now play two games of the lottery in which he
has a slightly better chance of winning each, as opposed to playing a single
game of the lottery. Even if George’s odds within the two lotteries is decent,
his overall odds of winning both at the
same time by buying a single ticket for each becomes drastically more
unlikely than buying a single ticket for a single game.
When
Stenger says, “the fact that a change in one parameter can be compensated for
by a change in another, opening up more parameter space for a viable universe,”
he is also opening up even more
parameter space for non-viable universes. Stenger has made a completely accurate
statement, which proves exactly the opposite of what he intended to demonstrate.
Section
2: Arguments which decrease the total area of parameter space (Stenger’s 3, 6,
and 7)
Stenger presents another valid argument with a fallacious
interpretation by pointing out that “the ratio of electrons to protons, the
expansion rate of the universe, and the mass density of the universe, [are]
precisely set by cosmological physics” (Fallacy
293). In effect, Stenger is attempting to reduce the total area of parameter
space with reference to the three parameters he lists.
Consider the example of the ratio of electrons to protons.
Within this example, if the ratio of electrons to protons had been even
slightly increased or decreased, there would be catastrophic consequences for
any universe. However, as physicists such as Lawrence Krauss have pointed out,
if a universe were to be spontaneously generated out of nothing (and by nothing,
he means a quantum vacuum), then one would expect for the overall charge to be
zero. Just as particles and anti-particles would serve as positive and negative
forms of matter, thereby allowing for the existence of matter without matter
existing beforehand (5 plus -5 equals 0), so too would electrons and protons
serve as a perfect counter to one another adding up to zero. This hypothesis
creates a viable reason for the overall charge of the universe to be neutral.
Even if the idea that entire universes could be generated
from a quantum vacuum were to be theoretically accepted by physicists, or had
at least been observed to take place, the assumption of FT remains that the
ratio of electrons to protons could have been different. If universes with
alternate ratios are instantaneously annihilated, or fail to emerge from the
quantum vacuum, this simply makes them even less viable for origin events.
In
addition, assuming that universes can come from nothing is the same as assuming
the multiverse hypothesis, which Stenger claims to be expelling from the
current conversation.
The
sixth Final Conclusion of Stenger makes a similar mistake: “they claim
fine-tuning for the masses of elementary particles, when the ranges of these
masses are set by well-established physics and are sufficiently constrained to
give some form of life” (Fallacy 293).
Stenger’s
misconception is that parameters set by well-established physics are allowed to
vary within parameter space. We are simply asking the question, if the ranges
of the masses of elementary particles were something other than what we observe,
would the universe allow for origin events? It is quite obvious that the values
for the mass of elementary particles, as well as a good number of other things
such as the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and the cosmological constant,
all have values which we can expect based off of the physics of our universe.
Stenger
again attempts to decrease the total area of parameter space by pointing out
that constants vary with energy, rather than varying independently from
universe to universe. This even more fundamental characteristic of our physics,
the way in which parameters change at varying energy levels, is merely a
parameter itself within our physics. Any time a parameter is ‘explained away’
by a more fundamental principle which dictates its characteristics, it is the
more fundamental principle which becomes the subject of FT. If every parameter
in our physics was due to a single fundamental entity, such as strings (from
String Theory), then each parameter would still be inherent within the
fundamental entity. Thus, providing explanations for the origins of parameters
does not decrease the total area of parameter space.
Section
3: Arguments which decrease the number of dimensions in parameter space
(Stenger’s 2, 3, 6, and 7)
Stenger’s second Final Conclusion states: “They claim
fine-tuning for physics constants, such as c, h, and G, whose values are
arbitrary” (Fallacy 293). Because
Stenger spends the most time explaining why the speed of light, c, is arbitrary,
and refers back to his reasoning concerning the speed of light when claiming
that h and G are arbitrary, I will respond at length to his argument concerning
c.
Because
Stenger does not truly make an argument, I cannot summarize his claims with
regards to c. Instead, I will quote extensively from Fallacy so that readers can try to spot Stenger’s argument.
How
do we measure space and time? Well, we try to measure them as accurately as
possible. For example, according to Dr. Stenger, "In 1960, the meter was defined
as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths in a vacuum of the electromagnetic radiation that
results from the transition between the 2p10 and 5d5 energy levels of the
Krypton-86 atom," and "In 1967, the second was defined as 9,192,631,770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom” (Fallacy 55). For anyone who is not
familiar with the physics involved in these statements, these are extremely
accurate methods for measuring distance and time.
Now
then, remember the "c" from E=mc^2 (Einstein's equation)? This
"c" represents the speed of light in a vacuum. In his special theory
of relativity, Einstein makes the claim that c is a universal constant. This
claim has been overwhelmingly supported.
In
the Standard (SI) system of units, the distance between two points in space is
measured in meters. Until 1983, the meter was defined independently
of the second. In that year, by international agreement, it was mandated that the
meter would be defined as the distance between two points when the time it
takes light to go between the points in a vacuum is 1/299,792,458 second. That
is, the speed of light in a vacuum is c = 299,792,458 meters per second by
definition. (Fallacy 55-58)
(italics Stenger's, underlining mine)
Stenger’s
definition of light, which is certainly an excellent one, has several
interesting implications. By this definition, we measure not only time on
clocks, but distance as well. A meter is the distance traveled by light in a
given amount of time. According to Dr. Stenger, this means that "The
quantity c cannot be fine-tuned. It is fixed by definition" (Fallacy 56).
In
the case of light (which has no mass), "no matter how fast you are moving
with respect to the source of the light you are measuring, you will get exactly
299,792,458 meters per second" (Fallacy
56). Thanks to Einstein, we now know that space and time are not
independent of one another. We don't just have three dimensions of space with
time as a separate, independent entity- we have four dimensions (three of space
and one of time).
Finally,
Stenger points out that it is possible to set the speed of light to 1 so that
the units for distance will be the same as the units for time. Changing the
units to make c equal 1 is extremely useful for physicists, because
"Setting c = 1 gets rid of a lot of c's in equations, not only making them
simpler but helping to emphasize that the value of c has no fundamental role in
physics" (Fallacy 57).
Dr. Stenger’s final word on the speed of light,
which is fundamental to his arguments pertaining to the gravitational constant
and Planck’s constant concerns the definition of the speed of light.
As we have seen
above, c is by definition 299,792,458 meters per second or one
light-year per year. While light moves at this speed in a vacuum, c is
fundamentally the speed beyond which a physical body cannot be accelerated
according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. But its value is
arbitrary. As we have seen, according to the current operational definitions of
time and distance, the meter is defined as the distance light goes between two
points in space in 1/299,792,458 second (Fallacy
59-60).
The
failure of Dr. Stenger’s argument at this point is that it proves too much.
Consider what happens if I argue that a door is FT for a person to walk under
without bumper his head, and then apply Dr. Stenger’s argument. Let’s say a man
that is one meter tall attempts to walk through a door that is two meters
high—he won’t bump his head. If the same one meter tall man attempts to walk
through a door that is half a meter high, he will bump his head. According to
Dr. Stenger’s reasoning, the height of the door is arbitrary, because
“according to the current operational definitions of time and distance, the
meter is defined as the distance light goes between two points in space in
1/299,792,458 second” (Fallacy 60).
However, the height of the door clearly is FT, because if the door is too short,
the man simply will run into a physical barrier. What matters is not the units
by which the speed of light is defined, but the dimensionless ratio between the
height of the door and the height of the man. So too, in the case of the speed
of light, what matters is not the units utilized, but the dimensionless ratio
between the values in question. Simply put, holding everything else in the
universe constant, the “speed beyond which a physical body cannot be
accelerated” (Fallacy 59) could be
different. Even if c could not change, the distances between stars and planets
could.
Even
if it were impossible for the speed of light to be anything other than what it
is in our universe in a way meaningful for the FT discussion, then space could
be stretched or the rate at which times flows could be altered. In this way,
even if light obtains its value from some other, more fundamental property of
our physics, it is simply this new property as opposed to the speed of light
which is FT.
The
same reasoning holds true for G and h (which is why I respond to Dr. Stenger’s
reasoning regarding c, even though I do not think that c is FT—see explanation
below). These parameters which have been measured by physicists may not be
exactly what we think them to be, but they are nonetheless properties of our
universe which can be measured and have significance for whether or not life
can exist. Stenger claims that gravity is a fictitious force due to reference
frames, and can vanish just like the centripetal force. Gravity has been
described through relativity as distortions in space-time that are generated by
mass. In this view, objects such as planets orbiting a star are not pulled off
of the course by a force, but travel in a straight line along a geodesic
through a curved space.
Even
this explanation, however, is not sufficient to truly understand gravity. This
fact is irrelevant for FT, because what we experience with regards to the
expansion of the universe and the way in which we orbit the sun are properties
of gravity, whatever gravity actually is. Gravity could be stronger, and it
could be weaker, and if it were either our universe would not be one that would
allow for origin events. To conclude, Stenger has failed to reduce the number
of dimensions in parameter space by labeling c, G, and h as arbitrary.
It
is important to note that c is not actually FT, but for reasons not mentioned
by Stenger. I chose to refute his reasoning concerning c because he utilizes it
to refute G and h. Now, I will demonstrate why c actually does not display FT.
C
is a solar system level parameter. Historically, it was considered to be FT
because if c were faster, earth would be too hot for our form of life. If c
were slower, earth would be too cold for our form of life. Because there are
many solar systems throughout the universe, however, it is quite possible for
there to be planets which are the correct distance from the stars they orbit
for, say, water to be in its liquid form. Additionally, origin events could
take place at temperatures significantly hotter and colder than the specific
temperature present for our origin event. In short, the scenario with c is
analogous to buying billions of lottery tickets—no one is surprised that the
player won the jackpot. I defended the FT of c so that G and h could be
demonstrated to be relevant, as opposed to arbitrary.
Chapter 3: Counter to Objections to
Fine-Tuning from Tyson, Greene, and Krauss
In
this section three common objections to FT found in the popular realm will be
addressed, for while these arguments may not be as reasonably sound as the
arguments of Dr. Stenger and Dr. Barnes, they are widespread and commonly used.
Because one of the primary goals of this thesis is to inform educated laypeople
on FT, popular-level arguments are within the scope of this document.
Fine
Tuning vs. Intelligent Design
Dr.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an award winning astrophysicist with a PhD from Columbia
University. He is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium. In 2008 he
gave a short presentation on the science network entitled “STUPID Design,” in
which he advocates a common, popular-level response to FT.
Dr.
Tyson’s primary argument is that our universe is not ideal for life. In support
of this claim, Dr. Tyson states, “Most planet orbits are unstable, star
formation is completely inefficient. Most places in the universe will kill life
instantly—instantly. People say oh the forces of nature are just right for
life—just look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. [Almost
anywhere in the universe] you will die instantly! That’s not what I call the
garden of Eden” (Tyson). Even within the small percentage of the universe in
which life can survive, Dr. Tyson argues, there are a plethora of hazards and
dangers which result in regular mortality. Dr. Tyson illustrates his point with
the following list of threats to life:
·
Earth will inevitably come close enough
to a supernova for it to wipe out our ozone layer to be wiped out, killing
everyone on the surface.
·
Our universe is on a one-way track to
heat death (thermodynamic equilibrium).
·
Earth is subject to natural disasters
such as tsunamis and volcanoes.
·
A huge amount of time is necessary for
multicellular life (as it exists on earth) to develop (in the way that it
developed on earth).
·
Carbon monoxide gas is dangerous, and we
cannot see or smell it, resulting in a certain number of people dying each
year.
To summarize, Dr. Tyson
argues that because the majority of our universe is not habitable for life, and
that the habitable regions of our universe are often tedious for survival, that
therefore the universe is not FT.
I
contend that Dr. Tyson’s objection is invalid because he confuses two distinct
subjects, FT and Intelligent Design (ID). Dr. Tyson’s argument relies on evidence
which can appropriately be applied to ID against FT, which is a separate topic.
Had Dr. Tyson limited his presentation to ID alone, his argument would have
been sound.
The most appropriate definition of FT, as stated before,
is that out of the possible physics, the subset of physics that allows for
origin events to take place is small. ID, on the other hand, is commonly
thought of using the watchmaker principle. If someone were to find a watch on
the side of the road, they would notice the intricacies of the watch and deduce
that an intelligent entity had made the watch for a specific purpose, as opposed
to the pieces of the watch happening to fall together by chance. A final topic
which Dr. Tyson brings up is the idea of ‘Ideal Design,’ meaning that the
universe is ideal for life.
Tyson argues against ID by pointing out the lack of intelligence
present in the ‘design’, and does so robustly with his examples of
‘unintelligent design.’ These examples, however, have nothing to do with
whether or not our universe is FT. Compare a universe made up of only hydrogen and
helium to our universe, complete with natural disasters on earth and
rare-but-inevitable supernovas which will affect earth. Examined from this
point of view, problems such as volcanoes and the length of time it can take
for life to evolve are seen as slight inconveniences as opposed to
insurmountable problems. Keep in mind that without supernovas, the heavy
elements which make up life would not exist. A tsunami-ridden planet in a
universe containing carbon and oxygen is far more habitable than a universe comprised
entirely of a black hole. Taken from this perspective, one could even argue
based off of FT that our universe actually is ID, flawed as our planet may be.
The numerous ‘imperfections’ found on earth and in our
universe with regards to the existence of life leads us to our next
subject—ideal design. While our universe does allow for the existence of life,
Dr. Tyson argues, it certainly could be improved upon. A higher percentage of
planets could maintain conditions conducive for evolution, fewer asteroids
could hit our planet causing mass extinctions, more oxygen could exist on earth
before cyanobacteria generated it over millions of years allowing for a swifter
development of eukaryotic life forms. Basically, because our universe is far
less than ideal for our kind of life in particular, it is not FT.
This argument simply misrepresents FT. While it is
certainly interesting that life cannot survive in the vast majority of our
universe, matters of ideal proportion of viable living space at any particular
point in history and the length of time required for humans to evolve are
subjective and anthropically biased. Cyanobacteria were quite happy living for
millions of years in their hypoxic environments, and FT targets cyanobacteria
just as much as it targets humans, fungus, and completely different forms of
life which could have evolved in radically different environments (as in,
completely different planets).
Star formation in our universe may very well be
inefficient, as Dr. Tyson points out, but this is quite irrelevant. What
matters is that stars in our universe produce heavy elements (carbon and oxygen
in particular), and that in most physics this is not the case. Dr. Tyson
succeeds in pointing out that natural disasters, earthly and cosmic, cause
problems for life. All life carries anatomical baggage from an evolutionarily
imperfect past. Our universe certainly is not ideal for life. As to whether or
not our universe is ID is outside the scope of this document, and is irrelevant
to the FT. Even with hurricanes, tornadoes, the inevitable explosion of our
sun, and the fact that a vanishingly small percentage of our universe is
habitable, when compared to most universes, ours truly is a veritable Eden.
The
Multiverse
While
Dr. Stenger rightly excludes the existence of the multiverse from his attack on
FT due to a current lack of empirical evidence, his is one of the few who
rightly does so. However, the idea of a multiverse has entrenched itself so
broadly and completely in the public impression of science by masquerading as a
theory on par with gravity or the big bang, that it simply must be addressed.
In February of 2012, Dr. Brian Greene, a professor at
Columbia University and a proponent of superstring theory, gave a TED Talk entitled
“Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?” Dr. Greene’s talk covers the
scientific history behind string theory, the mystery of why our universe has
the amount of dark energy that is has (if the amount changed slightly life
could not exist), the multiverse as a solution to the mystery, and one
potential way in which other universes could be observed.
String theory is a potential candidate for the holy grail
of modern science: a unified theory of physics. If string theory is an accurate
description of our universe, then all particles are made up of strings
vibrating at various frequencies. The characteristics of the particles are
dictated by the frequencies at which the strings vibrate. Dr. Greene notes one
potential problem with string theory—in order for the math to work out
additional dimensions are required. These dimensions are unobservable to us
because they are folded down on a miniscule level. String theory would be
extremely informative because “particle masses, the strengths of forces, and
most importantly, the amount of dark energy would be determined by the shape of
the extra dimensions” (Greene).
Unfortunately, there is another serious problem for
string theory. As Dr. Greene points out, we don’t know the shape of the extra
dimensions. Because we cannot observe strings, we must rely on mathematical
possibility to determine the shape of the dimensions. Thus far, there are 10 to
the 500 candidates for the shapes of the dimensions. “[In the face of these
numbers] some researchers lost heart, concluding that with so many candidate
shapes for the extra dimensions, each giving rise to different physical
features, string theory would never make definitive, testable predictions”
(Greene). However, scientists such as Dr. Greene decided to make an attempt at
saving the theory by rephrasing the question.
[I]f there are other universes, and
if those universes each have, say, a different shape for the extra dimensions,
then the physical features of each universe will be different, and in
particular, the amount of dark energy in each universe will be different. Which
means that the mystery of explaining the amount of dark energy we've now
measured would take on a wholly different character. In this context, the laws
of physics can't explain one number for the dark energy because there isn't
just one number, there are many numbers. Which means we have been asking the
wrong question. It's that the right question to ask is, why do we humans find
ourselves in a universe with a particular amount of dark energy we've measured
instead of any of the other possibilities that are out there? (Greene)
Instead of wondering
why the amount of dark energy is FT for life, we ought to take a different
perspective. Life evolved in this universe because it was the one out of the
many that happened to have the right physics to allow for at least one origin
event to take place. In the lottery analogy referred to earlier in this work,
utilizing the multiverse as an explanation is equivalent to buying a huge
number of lottery tickets. Further, if there exists a universe with strings
corresponding to every potential shape for the extra dimensions, then a lottery
ticket has been bought for every possible combination of numbers.
At
this point, Dr. Greene begins to point out some of the problems with utilizing
the multiverse as an explanation, “so far I've only speculated on the
possibility that there might be other universes. So to pull it all together, we
need a mechanism that can actually generate other universes... [and] such a
mechanism has been found by cosmologists trying to understand the Big Bang”
(Greene). Dr. Greene then explains that physicists have discovered a fuel
related to quantum fields which is “so efficient that it's virtually impossible
to use it all up, which means in the inflationary theory, the Big Bang giving
rise to our universe is likely not a one-time event” (Greene). According to Dr.
Greene, the inexhaustible nature of this fuel implies that multiple universes
would be generated—possibly a number with a magnitude sufficient to erase the
probability against a universe having just the right physics for life.
I
will respond to Dr. Greene’s arguments concerning the multiverse by sharing a
few additional quotes from the end of Dr. Greene’s presentation.
·
“And this is the compelling but highly
controversial picture of the wider cosmos that cutting-edge observation and
theory have now led us to seriously consider” (Greene).
·
“One big remaining question, of course,
is, could we ever confirm the existence of other universes? Well let me
describe one way that might one day happen” (Greene).
·
“And so exotic as this picture is, it
may one day be grounded in observations, establishing the existence of other universes”
(Greene).
Note that Dr. Greene
does not say “cutting-edge
observation and theory have now led us to accept,”
“Let me describe one way that this has
already happened,” or “[string theory and the multiverse] is currently grounded in observations.
According to one of the most eminent proponents of string theory, the best we
can do right now is hope to test string theory in the future. The ‘just so
explanations’ concerning the fundamental building blocks of our universe and
potential implications for other universes are fine, but they don’t mean
anything unless we have testable hypotheses. Possible explanations are not empirical
data.
One day evidence for the multiverse may exist, and when
that time comes it must be incorporated into the conversation on FT. If that
time comes, however, the multiverse is not a home-run argument against FT. In
order for the multiverse to provide a viable counter to FT, it must at least
meet the following requirements:
·
The multiverse needs to be comprised of
an immense number of universes.
·
Physics must differ from universe to
universe.
·
Physics within the multiverse must account
for all regions of parameter space.
·
The multiverse itself must not be FT.
If we currently knew
something about the multiverse, answers to these questions could potentially be
formulated. There is a reason that Dr. Stenger chose not to utilize the
multiverse as a counter to FT. Because we currently do not know if a multiverse
exists, nor do we know whether or not the multiverse itself would need to be
FT, no conclusions should be drawn concerning FT with reference to the
multiverse at this point.
Cosmic
Natural Selection
A
final popular argument against FT is advocated by Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a
theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School
of Earth and Space Exploration and director of Arizona State University's
Origins Project. Dr. Krauss argues that any argument in favor of FT falls
subject to the error of Anthropic Mania. “IF there are many different
universes, and the energy of empty space can vary in each one, then only those
in which it is not much greater than what we measure will galaxies form… and
only then will stars and planets for, and only then astronomers… So, the
universe is the way it is because astronomers are here to measure it” (Krauss).
The idea is that astronomers will only exist in universes in which astronomers
could exist.
I will respond to this in two ways. The first is to point
out that Dr. Krauss was right to capitalize the “IF” at the beginning of the
quote. The argument assumes a multiverse, which was responded to in the
previous section. The second is to quote Dr. Krauss’ colleague, Dr. Richard Dawkins:
“The philosopher John Leslie expresses his dissatisfaction with it by imagining
a man facing a firing squad—there are 10 men in the firing squad, they all aim
their rifles at him, the rifles go off and he finds himself still alive, and so
he says to himself ‘well, obviously the rifles all missed because otherwise I
wouldn’t be here,’ but that leaves unexplained why the rifles all missed. We
need an explanation for why they all missed” (Applying Evolution). In the absence of a multiverse, in particular,
a scientific mind would want to search for an answer to the mystery of FT.
The
Normalization Problem
The most basic assumption of the FT argument is that
parameters could take on values other than what they have in our universe. Basically,
physics could be different. The primary question raised by this assumption is
“how much can the parameters change?” If there is a limit on the range,
determining the degree of FT is a simple matter of calculating the percentage
of parameter space that allows for life. It is here that the assumption that
parameters can change backfires on the FT argument. Once the parameters are
allowed to change at all, there is no physical reason to set a limit on the
range. For example, the range of parameter space for G would be (-∞, ∞).
Nothing stops G from being infinitely attractive or infinitely repulsive in the
set of possible physics. Because of this, it is impossible to calculate the
percentage of parameter space that allows for life. Infinite parameter spaces
by their nature defy Bayesian statistics, which is what all probability
arguments are based on. Because of this, it is impossible to determine (using
traditional methods) the degree to which our universe is FT.
However,
philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame points out the
shortcomings of the normalization problem in his book “Where the Conflict
Really Lies,” utilizing a simple thought experiment. To explain his argument, I
will utilize a similar, although not identical, thought experiment.
Consider
a massive constellation in the night sky that spelled: “Hello, humans, a
super-intellect engineered your universe.” This message, written in the stars,
would need to be a specific distance away from earth in order for humans to
read it. If it were too close, the angle would change, making it difficult to
impossible to read the message. If it were too far, the stars would be too dim,
making it impossible for us to see the message. In this hypothetical situation,
the range of distance from earth to the constellation extends from zero to
infinity, in the same way that parameter space extends infinitely for G, h, or
c. But does this mean that the distance from us to the hypothetical
constellation is not suspiciously accurate? Clearly it does not. While it is
mathematically impossible to describe the degree to which the distance from
earth to the constellation is FT, it nonetheless seems to be the case that if
such a constellation were to exist in the night sky, a reasonable individual
would have difficulty arguing that the constellation is meaningless.
It
is important to note that the specific words, language, and anthropic bias of
the constellation in this hypothetical scenario are irrelevant to the argument.
What matters is that the distance from earth to the constellation needs to be
within a specific range in order for the message to be readable.
Conclusions
Stenger’s attempts to refute FT through increasing the
area of parameter space that allows for life fail, because the area of
parameter space that does not allow for life is much larger. Stenger’s
arguments which decrease the total area of parameter space fail, because the
base-line assumption of FT is that physics could be different than it is in our
universe. Stenger’s attempts to refute FT by decreasing the number of
dimensions in parameter space fail, because G, h, and c are not arbitrary.
However, c is not a parameter which is capable of being FT because it is a
solar system level parameter.
Tyson’s argument that the universe is not FT because the
vast majority of the universe is inhabitable simply confused FT with Ideal
Design. The FT argument states that is the physics in our universe were
slightly altered, no origin events could take place. In our
universe, origin events are possible. Therefore, whether or not a high
percentage of our planet, the solar system, or the entire universe is habitable
is simply irrelevant.
Appeals to the multiverse to refute FT are not currently
valid, because we simply do not have empirical evidence for the existence of a
multiverse at the present time. If evidence supporting the existence of a
multiverse is found, it would still be necessary to establish that parameters
varied from universe to universe, a large number of universes exist, and the
multiverse itself cannot be FT.
The assentation of Krauss that FT is reduced to nothing
but “Anthropic Mania” dodges the question of FT without addressing the
argument. FT addresses the possibility for any type of abiogenesis, which
includes life forms vastly different than humans. Krauss also assumes the
multiverse exists in order to make his argument, something that Stenger rightly
avoids (and which has already been addressed in this document).
The normalization problem is the only true counter to FT
at the present time. The normalization problem can be illustrated in terms of
the lottery analogy is as follows:
The Normalization
Problem is such a powerful counter, that it refutes any argument in favor of FT
based on statistics or proportions. Because infinite parameter space defies
statistical analysis, and the sample size N=1, we cannot utilize traditional
scientific methods to examine FT. Due to the Normalization Problem, it is
impossible to assign a degree of FT. However, Plantinga’s example shows that
this is a limitation with Bayesian statistics; it does not necessarily mean
that the universe is not FT. At this point, the subject of the FT of our
universe for abiogenesis requires further study. It will require a creative
approach to examine the evidence in order for quantitative conclusions to be
reached. Based on Plantinga’s approach, we can, however, conclude that our
universe is qualitatively FT. Because of the Normalization Problem, there is no
lottery—there is only a message written in the stars.
Bibliography
Barnes, Luke A. "The
Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life." Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Australia 29.04 (2012): 529-64. Print.
Burgess,
C. P., and Guy David Moore. The Standard Model: A Primer. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. "Applying
Darwinian Evolution to Physics." Berkeley Arts & Lectures. Berkeley. 7
Oct. 2009. Lecture.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind
Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.
New York: Norton, 1996. Print.
Greene,
Brian R. "Is Our Universe the Only Universe?" TED2012. Terrace
Theater, Long Beach. 28 Feb. 2012. Speech.
Hawking, Steven. A Brief
History of Time. New York: Bantam, 1988. Print.
Krauss,
Lawrence M. "A Universe From Nothing." A Universe From Nothing. Radcliffe
Institute for Advanced Study, Cambridge. 2 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
Reece,
Jane B., and Neil A. Campbell. Biology. Boston, MA: Cummings, 2011.
Print.
Stenger,
Victor J. "Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning." ArXiv.
Cornell University Library, 28 Jan. 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4359>.
Stenger,
Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for
Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. Print.
Tyson,
Neil D. "STUPID Design." Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion
& Survival. Salk Institute, La Jolla. 5 Dec. 2013. Lecture.
