Computational and biological analogies for understanding the fine tuning

1. Computational and biological analogies for understanding the fine tuning of parameters in physics. Clément Vidal Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) Evolution Complexity and Cognition (ECCO) clement.vidal@philosophons.com

2. Outline • Introduction • Physical constants and initial conditions • Analogies for scientific purposes • The computational universe • The biological universe

3. 1. Introduction

4. The worldview questions. (Apostel, Van der Veken 1991); (Vidal 2007, 2008b)

5. The worldview questions. (Apostel, Van der Veken 1991); (Vidal 2007, 2008b)

6. Gap in scientific explanation • God explained the “laws of Nature” • Science developed, and God was put aside • Laws are given, brute facts. • Immense progress in Big History • Gap in scientific explanation for the origin. (Davies 1998)

7. The Fine-Tuning (FT) Problem • if a number of physical parameters had been slightly different, no life or more generally no complexity would have emerged. (e.g. Leslie 1989, Rees 2000, etc.). • Two sets of fine-tuned parameters: • Physical constants model of particle physics. • Initial conditions in cosmological models

8. 2. Physical constants and initial conditions

9. Levy-Leblond’s (1979) Classification of constants • A. Properties of physical objects (masses of "elementary particles", etc.) • B. Classes of physical phenomenascoupling constants of the various fundamental interactions (nuclear, strong and weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) • C. Universal constantsconstants applicable in principle to any physical phenomenon; (Planck constant ħ is a typical example.

10. Fine Tuning of dimensionless coupling constants • α electromagnetism • αG gravity • αW weak nuclear force • αs strong nuclear force. • E.g. nucleosynthesis, the condition αG < αW4 must be fulfilled, else all hydrogen goes to helium. (Carr 2007)

11. The fate of dimensionful constants • Distinction between: • Dimensionless constants • Dimensionful constants (c, G, ħ ) • Historically, Type-C dimensionful constants fade away • (i) modernconceptual role dominant (e.g. ħ, c) • (ii) classicalconversion factors (e.g. thermodynamical constants k, J) • (iii) archaicinvisible (e.g. areas are square of lengths) • (Duff 2002): 0 dimensionful constants!

12. 0 dimensionless constants as well? • Type-A (properties) constants • Type-B coupling constants • All explained by a future cosmological model? • To be discussed! • If so, FT would be reduced to initial conditions of this model.

13. 3. Analogies for scientific purposes

14. What is an analogy? • “a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target) such that a system of relations that holds among the base objects also holds among the target objects.” (Gentner and Jeziorski 1993, 448-449). • E.g. Cloud and sponge • Basic cognitive tool (problem solving, etc.)

15. Good analogical reasoning • positive what is analogous? • negative what is disanalogous? • neutral are the two domains analogous? (Hesse 1966)

16. 4. The computational universe

17. AIT, laws and initial conditions • AIT: Algorithmic Information Theory (Chaitin) • Studies the complexity of strings • Laws • Information which can be compressed • Initial conditions • Information which cannot compressed

18. Cognitive point of view • Laws : • Information our theories are able to compress • Initial conditions • Information our theories can’t compress • Scientific progress: • Less initial conditions (hypotheses) and more compressing laws?

20. Simulating universes • To understand initial conditions of the Big Bang • FT arguments vary one single parameter • Simulations are needed to vary more parameters (see Vidal 2008a for more details)

21. MonkeyGod • Victor Stenger (1995, 2000) simulatedother possible universes. • Variation of 4 parameters • Mass of the electron • Mass of the proton • α electromagnetism • αs strong nuclear force. • Many of them generate long-lived stars

22. Limitations • (AIT) Initial conditions of cosmological models are not “incompressible” • Search new theories to explain them • Computation assumes Newtonian space and time • Everything is set up with laws and initial conditions

23. 4. The biological universe

24. Evo Devo Universe • My focus: Lee Smolin’s Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) • Extension of CNS (Crane 1994; Harrison 1995; Gardner 2000; 2003; Baláz 2005; Smart 2008; Vidal 2008)

25. Lee Smolin’s Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) The situation of nowadays physics is analogous to the biologists’ before Lamarck and Darwin.

26. Lee Smolin’s Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) The situation of nowadays physics is analogous to the biologists’ before Lamarck and Darwin.

29. Next talks • James Gardner: String theory • John Smart: Biological analogy (development) • John Stewart: Cosmos and human values

30. 5. Conclusion

31. Summary • Fine tuning arguments reduced to initial conditions of a future cosmological model? • Careful analogical reasoning • Simulations to explore other possible universes • Completing CNS with a role for intelligent life (Gardner, Smart, Stewart…)

32. Thank you for your attention ! Questions, criticisms are welcome now or later clement.vidal@philosophons.com

33. References (1) • Apostel, L., and Van der Veken. 1991. Wereldbeelden. Van fragmentering naar integratie. DNB/Pelckmans. English translation: Aerts, D., L. Apostel, Bart De Moor, et al. 1994. World Views. From fragmentation to integration. VUB Press. http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/pub/books/worldviews.pdf. • Baláz, BA. 2005. The Cosmological Replication Cycle, the Extraterrestrial Paradigm and the Final Anthropic Principle. Diotima, no. 33: 44-53. http://astro.elte.hu/~bab/seti/IACP12z.htm. • Carr, B., ed. 2007. Universe or multiverse. Ed. B. Carr. Cambridge University Press. • Crane, L. 1994. Possible Implications of the Quantum Theory of Gravity: An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9402104. • Davies, P. C. W. 1998. Our Place in the Universe. In Modern cosmology & philosophy, 311-318. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books. • Duff, M. J., L. B. Okun, and G. Veneziano. 2002. Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants. Journal of High Energy Physics 2002, no. 3: 19-19. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060. • Gardner, J. N. 2000. The Selfish Biocosm: complexity as cosmology. Complexity 5, no. 3: 34–45. • ---. 2003. Biocosm. The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe. Inner Ocean Publishing. • Gentner, D., and M. Jeziorski. 1993. The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science. Metaphor and Thought 447. http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/gentner/newpdfpapers/GentnerJeziorski93.pdf.

34. References (2) • Harrison, E. R. 1995. The Natural Selection of Universes Containing Intelligent Life. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 36, no. 3: 193-203. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996QJRAS..37..369B . • Hesse, M. 1966. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press. • Leslie, J. 1989. Universes. Routledge. • Levy-Leblond, J. M. 1979. The importance of being (a) constant. Problems in the foundations of physics, Enrico Fermi School LXXII, G. Torraldi ed.,(North Holland): 237. • Rees, M. 2000. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books. • Smart, J. 2008. Evo Devo Universe? A Framework for Speculations on Cosmic Culture. In Cosmos and Culture, ed. S. J. Dick. To appear. http://accelerating.org/downloads/SmartEvoDevoUniv2008.pdf.

35. References (3) • Stenger, V. J. 2000. Natural Explanations for the Anthropic Coincidences. Philo 3, no. 2: 50-67. • Stenger, Victor J. 1995. The Unconscious Quantum Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books. • Vidal, C. 2007. An Enduring Philosophical Agenda. Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method. Submitted for publication. http://cogprints.org/6048/. • ---. 2008a. The Future of Scientific Simulations: from Artificial Life to Artificial Cosmogenesis. In Death And Anti-Death, Volume 6: Thirty Years After Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). In press., ed. Charles Tandy. http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1087. • ---. 2008b. What is a worldview? Published in Dutch as: "Wat is een wereldbeeld?". In Nieuwheid Denken. De Wetenschappen En Het Creatieve Aspect Van De Werkelijkheid, ed. Hubert Van Belle and Jan Van der Veken, 71-85. Leuven: Acco. http://cogprints.org/6094/.