The Fine- Tuning Argument

1. The Fine-Tuning Argument An Argument from Physics & Cosmology

2. What is Being Argued For? • Arguing as an inference to the best explanation (contra. impossibility). • What best explains the existence of life in the universe? • Life: Anything that consumes/uses energy and reproduces itself • Intelligent causation can be detected. • Why intelligent causation? • Design –Fine-Tuning distinction • Compatible with Darwinism (theistic and naturalistic)

3. The Argument • Given  the fine-tuning evidence, a life permitting universe/multiverse (LPM) is very, very unlikely under the non-existence of a fine-tuner (~FT): that is, P(LPM|~FT & k’) ≪ 1. • Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPM is not unlikely under FT (the fine-tuner hypothesis): that is, ~P(LPM|FT & k’) ≪ 1. • Therefore, LPM strongly supports FT over ~FT.

4. Historical Development • Plato (429-347 bc) • Philebus in Book X, The Laws • Cicero (106-43 bc) • Book II, Chapters XXXVII, XLIV, XLVII in On the Nature of the Gods (45 bc) • William Paley (1743-1805) • Natural Theology (revived argument, though on biological terms)

5. Positions • The Regularist • The fundamental regularities are brute facts; they neither have nor require an explanation. • The Necessitarian • There are metaphysical connections of “necessity” in the world that ground and explain the most fundamental regularities. Those who advocate this position usually use the word must to express this connection. • The Theist • The most fundamental regularities in the world are explained by the creative and sustaining power of God: God either sustains these regularities directly, or God has created the sort of fundamental powers or necessities in nature that underlie these fundamental regularities.

6. Major Proponents • Robin Collins • Jay Richards • Guillermo Gonzalez • William Lane Craig • William Dembski • Bruce Gordon • James Sinclair

7. Major Skeptics • Stephen Hawking • Victor Stenger • Max Tegmark • Lawrence Krauss • Richard Dawkins

8. The Logic of the Argument • Abductive reasoning • Augustinian science over Duhemian science • Aristotle’s Four Causes • Material Cause, What is it made of? • Formal Cause, What is its form or essence? • Efficient Cause, What produced it? • Final Cause, What purpose? • William Whewell’s restriction of the word “science”

9. The Bounds of Probability 1080 x 1043 x 1025 = 10148 1080: Elementary particles in the universe 1043: Alterations in the states of matter per second (Hz, Planck time) 1025: Number in seconds the universe can maintain integrity 10148: Total number of state changes that all elementary particles in the universe can undergo through its duration.

10. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • To say that the laws are fine-tuned means that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order for life to exist. • Gravity • Electromagnetism • Strong Nuclear Force • Weak Nuclear Force • Principle of Quantization

11. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • Gravity • No stars, no planets, no life! • Example of star formation caused by gravitation attraction.

12. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • Electromagnetic Force • Different atomic bonds and thus complex molecules needed for life could not form. • No light, no life!

13. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • Strong Nuclear Force • The force that holds the atomic nucleus together. After all, protons are positively charged and like charges repel each other. Thus, shouldn’t the nucleus fly apart? • If stronger, no hydrogen, an essential element of life. • If weaker, only hydrogen.

14. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • Weak Nuclear Force • If stronger, insufficient helium to generate heavy elements in stars. • If weaker, stars burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.

15. The Fine-Tuning of theLaws of Nature • Principle of Quantization • Proposed by Niels Bohr in 1910 • Without it, an electron would be sucked into the nucleus of an atom. • No atoms, no life! • Pauli Exclusion Principle (Wolfgang Pauli, 1925), all electrons would fall into lowest orbital (no complex chemistry).

16. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature • There are fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics. • Gravitational constant • Strength of Electromagnetism • Cosmological constant

17. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature • Gravitational Constant • Determines the strength of gravity via Newton’s Law of Gravity F = Gm1m2/r2 • Actual value of G is 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2 m2 r m1

18. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature Q: How fine-tuned is the strength of gravity as given by G? A: We must first look at the range of force strengths in nature.

19. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature Strength of Electromagnetism: 1037G0 G0 = Current Strength of Gravity Strength of Weak Force: 1031G0 Strength of Strong Force: 1040G0 1040G0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity

20. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature • So, how fine tuned is gravity? • If it were increased then starts would get too hot and burn out quickly. • If gravity was increased by one part in 1034 of the range of force strengths then: • even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets less than 100 feet in diameter could sustain life with our brain size. Such planets, however, could not contain an ecosystem to support life of our level of intelligence. • If it were decreased then stars would never burn heavy elements.

21. The Fine-Tuning of theConstants of Nature • The cosmological constant (Λ, lambda) is a term in Einstein’s theory of gravity that influences the expansion rate of empty space. • It can be positive or negative. (Unless it is within an extremely narrow range around zero, the universe will either collapse or expand too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form).

22. Varying Fundamental Constants • Jordan-Brans-Dicke Theory • The value of G becomes a dynamical value (contrary to GR) • Varying Speed of Light (VSL) • Attempts to solve horizon problem (contrary to inflation) • Superstring Theory • Eternal Inflation

23. The Fine-Tuning of theInitial Conditions of the Universe • Roger Penrose’s initial low entropy calculations • Cosmic landscape parameters • Range of all possible universes given they be governed by the present laws of nature • 10500 possible universes, only 10120 given Λ

24. God as an Explanatory Hypothesis? • Best scientific evidence suggests that it did have a complex fine-tuning. • Remember, not arguing for God per se. • Is Plantinga’s approach to explanation applicable?

25. Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse? • What is the multiverse? • Are there different versions? • Do I have a twin somewhere? • How many are there?

26. Level 1 Multiverse • Features • Same laws of physics, different initial conditions • Assumptions • Infinite space, ergodic matter distribution • Evidence • CMB measurements point to flat, infinite space, large-scale smoothness • Simplest model

27. Level 2 Multiverse • Features • Same fundamental equations of physics, but perhaps different constants, particles and dimensionality • Assumptions • Chaotic inflation occurred • Evidence • Inflation explains flat space, scale-invariant fluctuations, solves horizon problem and monopole problems and explains fine-tuned parameters

28. Level 2 Multiverse Sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995, NASA W-Band 94 GHz WMAP, ESA/LFI & HFI Consortia Planck one-year survey

29. Level 3 Multiverse • Features • Same as level 2 • Assumptions • Physics unitary • Evidence • Experimental support for unitary physics • AdS/CFT correspondence suggests that even quantum gravity is unitary • Decoherence experimentally verified • Mathematically simplest model

30. Level 3 Multiverse—Quantum Weirdness

31. Level 4 Multiverse • Features • Different fundamental equations of physics • Assumptions • Mathematical existence = physical existence • Evidence • Unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics • Answers Wheeler/Hawking question: “Why these equations, not others?”

32. How Many Universes? • Stanford cosmologists Andre Linde and Vitally Vanchurin’s paper “How Many Universes are in the Multiverse?” (April 2010) • Universe is a result of quantum fluctuations in slow roll-inflation (string cosmic landscape). • Subject to change depending on definitions and parameters of inflation cosmology

33. Interpreting TheQuantum World • Interpretation is methodological/philosophical, it seeks to explain the data. • Ensemble • Copenhagen • de Broglie-Bohm • von Neumann • Quantum Logic • Many-Worlds • Time-Symmetric • Stochastic • Many-Minds • Consistent • Objective Collapse • Transactional • Relational

34. Inflationary-Superstring Multiverse The inflationary/superstring multiverse generator can only produce life-sustaining universe because it has the following four components/mechanisms. • A mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble universes. (Actual Mechanism: Inflation Field) • A mechanism to form the bubbles. (Actual Mechanism: Einstein’s Equation + Inflation Field)

35. Inflationary-Superstring Multiverse • A mechanism to convert the energy of inflation field to the normal mass/energy we find in our universe. (Actual Mechanism: E=mc2 + coupling between inflation field and matter fields) • A mechanism that allows enough variation in constants of physics among universes. (Actual Mechanism: Superstring Theory)

36. Is the MultiverseCompatible with Theism? • Yes, there’s nothing to suggest that it is not and it fits with God’s creativity (as revealed) and the historical trend of science. • If God were to create, would he create an open system or closed system?

37. Weak & MinimalisticAnthropic Principle • WAP—The universe we inhabit must have a life-permitting structure appears to be enough to make the observer-relative life-permitting fact unsurprising. • Ultimately, the claim “this universe is life-permitting” is tautologous. • Multiverse is a dissatisfactory explanation, irrelevant to the features of our universe. • MAP—When testing fundamental theories with observational data, ignoring selection effects can give incorrect conclusions. *Strong AP: Life needed to exist

38. Standard Model

39. Standard [Creation?] Model

40. Information • The numerical values of laws and constants are arbitrary. • Shannon Information: I=log2p • The mathematical expression of information and the amount of any information in any series of characters is inversely related to the probability and uncertainty. • Roll a die, lands on 5, more information is being relayed because it eliminates other possibilities. • Flip a coin, eliminate one possibility, less information conveyed. • More uncertainty eliminated, more information being related.

41. Information • Complexity vs. Specified Complexity • ffdfbb59^^MgdAShSEA^TTLEujjP:Ms6c1o4t6l7a8n1dNDsd+//bwadu • “Time and tide wait for no man.” • According to Shannon, both display information. • First string is extremely complex. The second string has a specific order allowing it to perform a function.

42. Aesthetics Excursus • Reverse engineering • From the very large aspects of the universe (i.e. big bang cosmology, galactic and stellar evolution, etc.) to the very small (i.e. the fitness of the chemical elements and the coding of DNA for life), the cosmos is so readily and profitably reverse engineered by its human inhabitants as to suggest that the whole shebang was engineered from the beginning. See D. Halsmer et al., Int. J. of Design and Ecodynamics 4 no. 1 (2009), 47-65.

43. Aesthetics Excursus • Meaningfulness in meaninglessness • Elements of genius • Periodic table • Designed for discovery

44. Natural Evil Problem: How can the designer design such a physical reality that causes such much evil? (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.)

45. Natural Evil

46. Natural Evil

47. Natural Evil • Problem: How can the designer design such a physical reality that causes such much evil? (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) • Nature is not evil, only moral agents are evil. • The designer’s moral status is irrelevant.

48. What Say You Good Sir? “The impression of design is overwhelming.” –Paul Davies (The Cosmic Code, 203). “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces in nature.” –Fred Hoyle

49. Conclusions • The argument makes it only probable that there is design in the universe. • The argument does not demand perfection. • The argument does not need to explain the problem of evil. • There must be a cause for design in the universe. • The designer must be extremely intelligent.