fine-tuning power point final version 10-3-08

8/6/2019 Fine-Tuning Power Point Final Version 10-3-08

1/156

Material to Add/ModifyMaterial to Add/Modify

1.1. Work onWork on MultiverseMultiverse hypothesis slides.hypothesis slides.

2.2. Response #3 to who designed God.Response #3 to who designed God.3.3. Updated with West Chester version throughUpdated with West Chester version through

slide 57. [Check, however, on definition ofslide 57. [Check, however, on definition of

brute fact hypothesis andbrute fact hypothesis and multiversemultiversehypothesis.]hypothesis.]

4.4. Could put slide: Lincoln and God? Caption: isCould put slide: Lincoln and God? Caption: is

this more implausible than this? [Perhaps put inthis more implausible than this? [Perhaps put inwho desi ned God section.who desi ned God section.


2/156

Links to Slides:Links to Slides:

Additional Slide LocatorAdditional Slide Locator

Evidence for FineEvidence for Fine--tuning:tuning: MultiverseMultiverse HypothesisHypothesis

Surprise Principle ArgumentSurprise Principle Argument


3/156

THE FINETHE FINE--TUNINGTUNING

DES

IGNDES

IGNARGUMENT:ARGUMENT:

An Argument from PhysicsAn Argument from Physicsand Cosmology for the Divineand Cosmology for the DivineCreation of the CosmosCreation of the Cosmos


4/156

The Big Issue:Science and GodThe Big Issue:Science and God

It is commonly assumed that modern scienceIt is commonly assumed that modern scienceundercuts belief in God. I will argue just theundercuts belief in God. I will argue just theopposite, that the discoveries of physics andopposite, that the discoveries of physics and

cosmology in the last 50 years strongly supportscosmology in the last 50 years strongly supportsdivine creation.

Before doing this, however, lets put the sort ofBefore doing this, however, lets put the sort ofdesign argument I will be offering indesign argument I will be offering inhistorical perspective::


5/156

History of Design ArgumentHistory of Design ArgumentThe Argument from Design is the oldest (andThe Argument from Design is the oldest (andmost common) argument for the existence ofmost common) argument for the existence ofGod, both in the East and in the West:God, both in the East and in the West:

Ancient India:200 CE and After

Stoics in Ancient Greece:300 BCE 200CE

Thomas Aquinas1225 1275CE


6/156

Highpoint of Design Argument in West:Highpoint of Design Argument in West:

William Paley, 1802.William Paley, 1802.

Explanations of Apparent Design of Plants and Animals:

Before Darwin (1859): GODGOD or CHANCE

After Darwin: GODGOD or EVOLUTIONEVOLUTION or CHANCE


7/156

What is the FineWhat is the Fine--Tuning? An AnalogyTuning? An Analogy

In the last 50 years, scientists

have discovered that theuniverse is analogous to a

biosphere:biosphere: its basic structure

must be precisely set for life to

exist. This is called the finefine--tunin of the cosmos.tunin of the cosmos.

Arizona Biosphere (1991-1994):everything had to be constructe

and set just right for it to be self-sustaining. Even then it failed intwo years.


8/156

Three Types of FineThree Types of Fine--Tuning for LifeTuning for Life

1. Fine1. Fine--tuning of thetuning of the laws of naturelaws of nature

2. Fine2. Fine--tuning of thetuning of the constants of physicsconstants of physics

3. Fine3. Fine--tuning of thetuning of the initial distribution of massinitial distribution of mass--

energyenergy of the universe at the time of the bigof the universe at the time of the bigbang.bang.


9/156

Key AssumptionKey Assumption

Embodied conscious life requiresEmbodied conscious life requiresstable, reproducible complexity.stable, reproducible complexity.


10/156

Fine-Tuning of Laws

To say that the laws are fineTo say that the laws are fine--tuned means thattuned means thatthe universe must have precisely the right set ofthe universe must have precisely the right set oflaws in order for (highly complex) life to exist.laws in order for (highly complex) life to exist.

Examples:

Existence of Gravity.Existence of Gravity.

Existence of Electromagnetic Force.Existence of Electromagnetic Force. Existence of Strong Nuclear Force.Existence of Strong Nuclear Force.

Existence of Principle of Quantization.Existence of Principle of Quantization.

Existence of PauliExistence of Pauli--Exclusion Principle.Exclusion Principle.


11/156

No Gravity: No Stars, No PlanetsNo Gravity: No Stars, No Planets

and th

erefore No Life!and th

erefore No Life!

Photo of N90, part of Small Magellanic Cloud,about 200,000 light years away. [Photo released January 2007. Image fromhttp://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0702.html]

Example of

star formation

caused bygravitational

attraction.


12/156

No Electromagnetic Force:No Electromagnetic Force:

Images from http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_model_04.gifibchem.com/IB/ibfiles/bonding/bon_img/cov2.gif

Then no atoms and therefore

NO LIFE!

Then no chemical bonding andtherefore NO LIFE!


13/156

No Electromagnetic Force:No Electromagnetic Force:

No Ligh

t, No Life!No Ligh

t, No Life!

Images courtesy of NASA


14/156

The Strong Nuclear ForceThe Strong Nuclear Force

Have you ever wondered:Have you ever wondered:What holds the nucleusWhat holds the nucleustogether? After all,together? After all,protonsprotons

are positively chargedare positively chargedand like chargesand like chargesrepel each other. Thus,repel each other. Thus,shouldnt the nucleus justshouldnt the nucleus just

fly apart?fly apart?

Protons Repelling each other


15/156

Answer:The Strong Nuclear ForceAnswer:The Strong Nuclear Force

Strong Nuclear Force Collins

Holding Killer Protons Together.


16/156

Th

erefore:Th

erefore:

NoNo Strong Nuclear Force, no Atoms, NO LIFE!, no Atoms, NO LIFE!


17/156

Principle of QuantizationPrinciple of Quantization

The principle of quantization is responsible forThe principle of quantization is responsible for

there being fixed orbits within an atom.there being fixed orbits within an atom.


18/156

Atom Without QuantizationAtom Without Quantization

Electron would be sucked into the nucleus:Electron would be sucked into the nucleus:

Illustration fromwww.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/fmc2.html ,

University of Birmingham.


19/156

Principle of QuantizationPrinciple of Quantization

Principle of Quantization

allows for stable atomicallows for stable atomic

orbitals.orbitals.[[The Principle of QuantizationThe Principle of Quantizationwas first proposed bywas first proposed by

Niels Bohr in 1910Niels Bohr in 1910

]]


20/156

Th

erefore:Th

erefore:

NoNo Principle of Quantization, No Atoms, NO LIFE!, No Atoms, NO LIFE!


21/156

Pauli Exclusion PrinciplePauli Exclusion Principle

Without the Pauli

Exclusion Principle, allelectrons would fall

into lowest orbital, andhence there would be no

complex chemistry.

[The Pauli Exclusion Principledictates that only two electronscan occupy an orbital. It was first

proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in1925.


22/156

Therefore:Therefore:

NoNo Pauli Exclusion PrinciplePauli Exclusion Principle, No, No

Complex Chemistry, No ComplexComplex Chemistry, No ComplexLife!Life!


23/156

ConclusionConclusion

Precisely the right laws are needed for highlyPrecisely the right laws are needed for highly

complex life to exist. If one of these laws werecomplex life to exist. If one of these laws weremissing, such life would be impossible.missing, such life would be impossible.

Summary ofExamples:Summary ofExamples:

Gravity

Electromagnetism

Strong Nuclear Force

Principle of Quantization

Pauli-Exclusion Principle


24/156

FineFine--tuning ofConstantstuning ofConstants

Question:Question: What are the constants of physics?What are the constants of physics?

Answer:Answer: They are the fundamentalThey are the fundamental numbersthat occur in the laws of physics.that occur in the laws of physics.

Many of these must be precisely adjusted to anMany of these must be precisely adjusted to anextraordinary degree for life to occur.extraordinary degree for life to occur.


25/156

Example: Gravitational ConstantExample: Gravitational Constant

TheThe Gravitational constant designated bydesignated byG ----determines the strength of gravity viadetermines the strength of gravity via Newtons Law ofNewtons Law ofGravity:Gravity:

F =F = Gmm11mm22/r/r22,,

where F is the force between two masses, mwhere F is the force between two masses, m11 and mand m22,,that are a distance r apart.that are a distance r apart. Increase or decrease Gand the force of gravity will correspondinglyincrease or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x(The actual value of G is 6.67 x

1010--1111 NmNm22/kg/kg22.).)

rm1m2


26/156

How fineHow fine--tuned is thetuned is the

strength

of gravity asstrength

of gravity asgiven by G?given by G?To answer that, we must first look atTo answer that, we must first look at

the range of force strengths in nature:the range of force strengths in nature:


27/156

G0 =

Current

StrengthOfGravity

Strength of

Electromagnetism:

1037G0

Strength of

Weak Force:

1031

G0

Strength of

Strong Nuclear

Force: 1040G0

1040G0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion

times the strength of gravity

Range of Force Strengths(based on standard dimensionless measure)


28/156

(Ruler stretches across entire universe)

Ruler Representation of Force StrengthsRuler Representation of Force Strengths

G0

=

Strength

OfGravity: 1

trillionthtrillionth of an

inch.

Strength ofStrong Force: 1515

billion light yearsbillion light years

(1040G0)


29/156

FineFine--Tuning of GravityTuning of Gravity

If one increased the strength of gravity byIf one increased the strength of gravity byone partin 1034 of the range of force strengths (i.e., a billionof the range of force strengths (i.e., a billion--fold increase in strength),fold increase in strength), then::

Even singleEven single--celled organisms would be crushed,celled organisms would be crushed,and only planets less than around 100 feet inand only planets less than around 100 feet indiameter could sustain life with our braindiameter could sustain life with our brain--size. Suchsize. Such

planets, however, could not contain an ecosystemplanets, however, could not contain an ecosystemto support life of our level of intelligence.to support life of our level of intelligence.


30/156

Gravity Too StrongGravity Too Strong


31/156

Another Effect of IncreasingAnother Effect of Increasing

Strength of Gravity:Strength of Gravity:

If one increased the strength of gravity byIf one increased the strength of gravity byonepart in 1037 of the range of force strengths, then:of the range of force strengths, then:

No long-lived stable stars ( that exist for( that exist forlonger than a billion yrs). This would hugelylonger than a billion yrs). This would hugelydecrease the chance of conscious, embodied lifedecrease the chance of conscious, embodied life

evolving.evolving.

*Source: Collins, 2003, based on joint work with*Source: Collins, 2003, based on joint work withastrophysicistastrophysicist HelmuttHelmutt SchlattlSchlattl ..


32/156

FineFine--Tuning of GravityTuning of Gravity----ContinuedContinued

Thus, in order for life to occur, the strength ofThus, in order for life to occur, the strength of

gravity must fall within an exceedingly narrowgravity must fall within an exceedingly narrowrange of values compared to the total range ofrange of values compared to the total range offorce strengths.force strengths.


33/156

Analogy:Analogy:Radio Dial Stretched Across the UniverseRadio Dial Stretched Across the Universe

+15 billion light

years

(Diagram not drawn to scale!)

WKLF (K-Life): You better tuneyour dial to the first one thousandth ofan inch if you want a universe with life!


34/156

FineFine--tuning ofCosmologicaltuning ofCosmological

ConstantConstant

TheThe cosmological constant is a term inis a term in

Einsteins theory of gravity that influences theEinsteins theory of gravity that influences theexpansion rate of empty space. It can beexpansion rate of empty space. It can be

positive or negativepositive or negative.. Unless it is within an extremelyUnless it is within an extremelynarrow range around zero, the universe will eithernarrow range around zero, the universe will either

collapse or expand too rapidly for galaxies and stars tocollapse or expand too rapidly for galaxies and stars to

form.form.

How fineHow fine--tuned is it?tuned is it?


35/156

Answer:Answer:

In the physics and cosmology literature, it isIn the physics and cosmology literature, it is

typically claimed that the cosmological constanttypically claimed that the cosmological constantmust fall within at leastmust fall within at least one part of 10one part of 105050 thatthat

is, 1 followed by 50 zerosis, 1 followed by 50 zeros ---- of its theoreticallyof its theoreticallynatural range in order for life to exist.natural range in order for life to exist.

This is an unimaginably precise degree of fineThis is an unimaginably precise degree of fine--

tuning.tuning.


36/156

Cosmological Constant: Radio DialCosmological Constant: Radio Dial

AnalogyAnalogy

+15 billion

light years.

WKLF: You must tuneyour dial to a trillionth ofa trillionth of an incharound zero.

-

15 billionlight years.


37/156


Many of the constants of physics must fall intoMany of the constants of physics must fall into

an exceedingly narrow range of values for life toan exceedingly narrow range of values for life toexist. If they had slightly different values, noexist. If they had slightly different values, no

complex material systems could arise.complex material systems could arise. This isThis iswidely recognized:widely recognized:


38/156

ExamplesExamples

Steven Hawking,Steven Hawking, the famous cosmologist:the famous cosmologist:The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e.The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e.

the constants of physics] seem to have been very finelythe constants of physics] seem to have been very finelyadjusted to make possible the development of life.adjusted to make possible the development of life. (Hawking,(Hawking,1988, A Brief History ofTime, p. 125.)1988, A Brief History ofTime, p. 125.)


39/156

Another ExampleAnother Example

Dr. Dennis Sciama, formerly director of CambridgeUniversity Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or youchange a little bit the constants of nature . . . it is very likelythat intelligent life would not have been able to develop. (Fromthe BBC special, The Anthropic Principle.)


40/156

FineFine--Tuning ofInitial Distribution ofTuning ofInitial Distribution ofMassMass--Energy:Energy:


41/156

How precise must theHow precise must theinitial distribution ofinitial distribution of

massmass--energy be for life toenergy be for life toexist?exist?


42/156

Ask Roger Penrose, one of Britains

leading theoretical physicists and

cosmologists:


43/156


44/156

AnalogyAnalogy

According to Penrosescalculations, the precisionof the Big Bang explosionmust be much greater than

that needed to blow up apile of rubble and obtain afully formed buildingreplete with desks, tables,

chairs, and computers!


45/156


The initial distribution of massThe initial distribution of mass--energy must fallenergy must fall

within an exceedingly narrow range for complexwithin an exceedingly narrow range for complexlife to occur.life to occur.


46/156

Recap:Types of FineRecap:Types of Fine--Tuning for LifeTuning for Life

FineFine--tuning of Laws of Physicstuning of Laws of Physics

FineFine--tuning of Constants of Physicstuning of Constants of Physics

FineFine--tuning of the Initial Conditions of thetuning of the Initial Conditions of the

UniverseUniverse


47/156

Summary ofEvidenceSummary ofEvidence

Biosphere Analogy: Dials must be perfectly set for

life to occur. (Dials represent values of constants.

Illustration by Becky Warner, 1994.)


48/156

SummarySummary--continuedcontinued


49/156

The Universe must have an Enormously

Precise Structure for Life to Exist

Cumulative Case ArgumentCumulative Case Argument

for Finefor Fine--TuningTuning

Laws of

Physics Constants of

Physics

Initial Conditions of

Universe.

As philosopher John Leslie notes: Clues heaped upon cluesconstitute weighty evidence despite doubts about each element

in the pile.


50/156

Howcan we Explain the FineHowcan we Explain the Fine--

Tuning?Tuning?

To many people the evidence of fine-tuning

immediately suggests divine designdivine design as the

explanation. This is true for theists and non-

theists.Ancient of Days or Gods Creating

the Universe, by William Blake (1757-1827).


51/156

Even non-theists agree that Divine Design is

the commonsense interpretation of the fine-tuning:

Theoretical physicist and popular science

writer Paul Davies: "The impression of design

is overwhelming" (The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203).


52/156

After discovering one of the first purportedcases of fine-tuning, the late astrophysicist SirFred Hoyle declared: Acommonsenseinterpretation of the facts suggests that asuperintellect has monkeyed with physics and

that there are no blind forces in nature.


53/156


54/156

The Two Major Alternatives Are:The Two Major Alternatives Are:

First Alternative:First Alternative:

Lucky Accident/Brute Fact Hypothesis.Lucky Accident/Brute Fact Hypothesis. The fact thatThe fact thata lifea life--permitting universe exists is just apermitting universe exists is just acoincidental fact that neither has nor requires ancoincidental fact that neither has nor requires anexplanation.explanation. Our existence is just anOur existence is just an

extraordinarily lu

cky a

ccident.e

xtraordinarily lu

cky a

ccident.


55/156

Comment:Comment:

Many people find the brute fact hypothesis as

implausible as claiming that a picture of the face

of Abraham Lincoln was just the result of an ink

spill:

An extraordinarilyAn extraordinarily

lucky ink spill?lucky ink spill?


56/156

Second Alternative:Second Alternative: MultiverseMultiverse

HypothesisHypothesisBut, perhaps if we spilled ink enough times weBut, perhaps if we spilled ink enough times we

would get the face of Lincoln. This leads us to thewould get the face of Lincoln. This leads us to the

second explanation, the sosecond explanation, the so--called called multiversemultiverse

hypothesishypothesis,, according to which there are anaccording to which there are anenormous number of universes with different initialenormous number of universes with different initialconditions, values for the constants of physics, andconditions, values for the constants of physics, and

even the laws of nature.even the laws of nature.T

hus, simply by chance,T

hus, simply by chance,some universe will have the winning combinationsome universe will have the winning combinationfor life; supposedly this explains why a lifefor life; supposedly this explains why a life--

permitting universe exists.permitting universe exists.


57/156

MultiverseMultiverse HypothesisHypothesis

Humans are winners of a cosmic lottery:Humans are winners of a cosmic lottery:


58/156

Two Prominent Advocates ofTwo Prominent Advocates of

MultiverseMultiverse HypothesisHypothesis

Professor Max Tegmark,Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Cosmologist

Sir Martin Rees,Astronomer Royal ofGreat Britain (since

1995).


59/156

Recent Books onRecent Books on MultiverseMultiverse


60/156

Th

eTh

e multiversemultiverseh

ypoth

esisc

omes in twoh

ypoth

esisc

omes in twomajor versions:major versions:


61/156

Purely Metaphysical VersionPurely Metaphysical Version

This is the idea that all possible universes exist as aThis is the idea that all possible universes exist as abrute fact without any further explanation. [Leadingbrute fact without any further explanation. [Leadingproponents: The late Philosopher David Lewis,proponents: The late Philosopher David Lewis,

cosmologist Maxcosmologist Max TegmarkTegmark.].] Not widely advocatedNot widely advocated..

Universes


62/156

Most Popular Version:UniverseMost Popular Version:Universe

Generator VersionGenerator Version

This is the idea that theThis is the idea that the universes are generated byuniverses are generated bysome physical processsome physical process that I call a Universethat I call a UniverseGenerator.Generator.Advocated by many leadingAdvocated by many leadingcosmologistscosmologists such as Stanford Universitys Andreisuch as Stanford Universitys AndreiLindeLinde and Britains Sir Martin Rees.and Britains Sir Martin Rees.

I fl tiI fl ti S t i V iS t i V i


63/156

InflationaryInflationary--Superstring VersionSuperstring Version

This is the most physically viable and most widelyThis is the most physically viable and most widely

advocated version of the universeadvocated version of the universe--generatorgenerator multiversemultiversehypothesis. As a result of an hypothesizedhypothesis. As a result of an hypothesized inflatoninflaton fieldfieldthat imparts a constant energy density to empty space, athat imparts a constant energy density to empty space, amultitude of regions of premultitude of regions of pre--space inflate and thenspace inflate and thenform bubble universes, with differing values for theform bubble universes, with differing values for the

constants and differing lowerconstants and differing lower--level laws of physics:level laws of physics:

Pre-Space

Bubble Universe

Analogy:Analogy:Ocean Full of Soap.


64/156

Possible Theistic Responses:Possible Theistic Responses:

Takes more faith to believe in manyTakes more faith to believe in many--universesuniversesgenerator than God.generator than God.

Where did universe generator come from?Where did universe generator come from?

Universe generator itself would need to be wellUniverse generator itself would need to be well

designed to produce a single lifedesigned to produce a single life--sustainingsustaining

universe.universe.

We will focus on the last responseWe will focus on the last response

..


65/156

Loaf of Bread

Bread Machine must be precisely

constructed (and correctly operated) toproduce decent loaves of bread. Further,

ingredients must be right (e.g., the amount

of yeast, gluten, water, etc.), otherwiseloaves come out like hockey pucks.

Bread Machine AnalogyBread Machine Analogy


66/156

Bread Machine AnalogyCont.

Wellbilt

In analogy to a bread machine, it seems that the

many-universe generator must have just theright laws and have just the right ingredients

(initial conditions) to produce life-supporting

universes.


67/156

Bread Machine Analogy Verified forBread Machine Analogy Verified for

InflationaryInflationary--Superstring ScenarioSuperstring Scenario

If one carefully examines the inflationaryIf one carefully examines the inflationary

superstring multiverse, it requires at least fivesuperstring multiverse, it requires at least five

special mechanisms/laws. So, it simply kicks thespecial mechanisms/laws. So, it simply kicks the

issue of design up one level.issue of design up one level.


68/156


At best, the manyAt best, the many--universes generator hypothesisuniverses generator hypothesiseliminates theeliminates the quantitativequantitative case for design based on thecase for design based on the

finefine--tuning of the constants. The manytuning of the constants. The many--universesuniversesgenerator still requires precise laws and the right initialgenerator still requires precise laws and the right initial

conditions in order to function. Thus, the questionconditions in order to function. Thus, the questionremains, Who or what designed the manyremains, Who or what designed the many--universesuniverses

generator?generator?

?


69/156

ConclusionsConclusions

1. The universe1. The universe--generator hypothesis does notgenerator hypothesis does not

significantly undercut the finesignificantly undercut the fine--tuning argument.tuning argument.

2. Theism is compatible with the many2. Theism is compatible with the many--universesuniverses

generator hypothesis. [God could have createdgenerator hypothesis. [God could have created

the universe via such a generator.]the universe via such a generator.]


70/156

End ofShort Version ofSlide ShowEnd ofShort Version ofSlide Show

11 slides ahead to additional slides11 slides ahead to additional slides


71/156

A further analysis of theA further analysis of the

brute fact hypothesis:brute fact hypothesis:


72/156

Brute Fact Hypothesis?Brute Fact Hypothesis?

Even though this hypothesis strikes many asEven though this hypothesis strikes many as

highly implausible (think ink spill analogy), wehighly implausible (think ink spill analogy), wecannot absolutely rule out the possibility thatcannot absolutely rule out the possibility that

our universe simply exists as an extraordinarilyour universe simply exists as an extraordinarilylucky accident.lucky accident.

BUT, we can say is that the fineBUT, we can say is that the fine--tuning providestuning providessignificantsignificant evidenceevidence in support of theism overin support of theism overthis hypothesis.this hypothesis.


73/156

HowSo?HowSo?By theBy the Likelihood PrincipleLikelihood Principle, a standard principle of, a standard principle ofConfirmation Theory. For our case, this principleConfirmation Theory. For our case, this principlereduces to what I call thereduces to what I call the Surprise Principle:Surprise Principle:

Surprise Principle Informally statedSurprise Principle Informally stated::Whenever aWhenever abody of data is much more surprising under onebody of data is much more surprising under onehypothesis than another, the data counts as evidence inhypothesis than another, the data counts as evidence infavor of the hypothesis under which it is leastfavor of the hypothesis under which it is least

surprising.surprising.

**Note: To avoid certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that is being confirmed should be restricted to those that have e**Note: To avoid certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that is being confirmed should be restricted to those that have eithitherer

been seriously advocated prior to E or for which we have independent motivation.been seriously advocated prior to E or for which we have independent motivation.


74/156

ExampleExample

A defendants fingerprints matching those on aA defendants fingerprints matching those on amurder weapon is typically taken as evidence ofmurder weapon is typically taken as evidence ofguilt:guilt:

GUILTY!

Why?


75/156

Because:Because:

Match NotNot Surprising

under Guilt Hypothesis:

Match very Surprising under

Innocence Hypothesis:

Therefore by Surprise Principle:

Guilt overover InnocenceEvidence for

A li d FiA li d Fi i Ai A


76/156

Applied to FineApplied to Fine--tuning Argumenttuning Argument

LifeLife--permitting Universepermitting Universe

NotNot Surprising Under Theism:

Very Surprising Under

Brute Fact Hypothesis:


77/156


Therefore, a lifeTherefore, a life--permitting universe providespermitting universe provides

strong evidence of theism over the brute factstrong evidence of theism over the brute facthypothesis:hypothesis:

Theism overover Brute FactStrong Evidence forStrong Evidence for

Guilt overover InnocenceStrong Evidence forStrong Evidence for

For same reason that fingerprint match can providestrong evidence for guilt over innocence:


78/156

Note:Note:

Just as the matching of fingerprints on a gun doJust as the matching of fingerprints on a gun do

not absolutelynot absolutelyproveprove guilt (since, for example, itguilt (since, for example, itis possible that they could have matched byis possible that they could have matched by

chance), the finechance), the fine--tuning doestuning does NOT absolutelyNOT absolutelyproveprove divine creation. It only providesdivine creation. It only provides strongstrong

evidenceevidence for divine creation over the brute factfor divine creation over the brute fact

hypothesis.hypothesis.


79/156

Overall SummaryOverall Summary

Three responses to fineThree responses to fine--tuning evidence:tuning evidence:

1. Theism1. Theism

2.2. MultiverseMultiverse HypothesisHypothesis

3. Brute Fact Hypothesis3. Brute Fact Hypothesis

Against (2):Against (2): MultiverseMultiverse generator requires design.generator requires design.

Against (3): By Surprise Principle, fineAgainst (3): By Surprise Principle, fine--tuning provides strongtuning provides strongevidence in favor of theism over Brute Fact Hypothesis.evidence in favor of theism over Brute Fact Hypothesis.


80/156

For Further InformationFor Further Information

For Further Information, see my FineFor Further Information, see my Fine--tuning Websitetuning Website

atatwww.finewww.fine--tuning.orgtuning.org,,www.robincollins.orgwww.robincollins.org

Or simply type Robin Collins into GoogleOr simply type Robin Collins into Google

For an online debate on issue, see the cosmologyFor an online debate on issue, see the cosmologysection ofsection of The Great Debate at www.infidels.orgThe Great Debate at www.infidels.org

LOCATIONS OFLOCATIONS OF


81/156

LOCATIONS OFLOCATIONS OF

ADDITIONAL SLIDESADDITIONAL SLIDESOBJECTIONS:OBJECTIONS:

1. Faith and Reason1. Faith and Reason [2 slides forward][2 slides forward]

2. Cant prove God objection2. Cant prove God objection [3 slides forward][3 slides forward]

3. Who Designed God Objection [4 slides forward]3. Who Designed God Objection [4 slides forward]

4. Intelligent Design?4. Intelligent Design? [10 slides forward].[10 slides forward].

5. God of Gaps?5. God of Gaps? [11 slides forward][11 slides forward]

6. Theory of Everything Objection6. Theory of Everything Objection [14 slides forward][14 slides forward]7. Other Forms of Life Objection7. Other Forms of Life Objection [15 slides forward][15 slides forward]

8. Other Life Permitting Laws8. Other Life Permitting Laws [16 slides forward][16 slides forward]

9. Scale Objection9. Scale Objection [17 slides forward][17 slides forward]


82/156

Location of Additional SlidesLocation of Additional Slides

FURTHER EVIDENCES/COMMENTSFURTHER EVIDENCES/COMMENTS

10. No Probability Objection10. No Probability Objection [18 slides forward][18 slides forward]

11. Why Does God Want ECA?11. Why Does God Want ECA? [19 slides forward][19 slides forward]

1212 HigherHigher--Level Types of FineLevel Types of Fine--tuningtuning[20 slides forward][20 slides forward]

13. Theism Compatible with13. Theism Compatible with MultiverseMultiverse [23 slides[23 slidesforward]forward]

14. Inflationary Cosmology Requires Right Laws14. Inflationary Cosmology Requires Right Laws [25[25slides forward]slides forward]

15. Elegance and Discoverability of Laws15. Elegance and Discoverability of Laws Really BigReally BigPicturePicture [30 slides[30 slides forward].forward].


83/156

Location of Additional SlidesLocation of Additional Slides

16. Linked Constant Objection16. Linked Constant Objection

17. Ongoing List of Conditions Necessary for Life17. Ongoing List of Conditions Necessary for Life

18. Dimensionless Constant Objection18. Dimensionless Constant Objection


84/156

Location ofStandard SlidesLocation ofStandard Slides

Links to Slides:Links to Slides:

Evidence for FineEvidence for Fine--tuning:tuning:

MultiverseMultiverse HypothesisHypothesis Surprise Principle ArgumentSurprise Principle Argument

CONCERNING FAITH ANDCONCERNING FAITH AND


85/156

CONCERNING FAITH ANDCONCERNING FAITH AND

REASONREASONQuestion:Question:It seems that you trying to makeIt seems that you trying to makebelief in God rest on science. How is thatbelief in God rest on science. How is thatcompatible with faith?compatible with faith?

Answer:Answer:I am not claiming that science is, orI am not claiming that science is, orshould be, the primary reason we believe inshould be, the primary reason we believe inGod. Rather, I am only claiming that the fineGod. Rather, I am only claiming that the fine--tuning data provides strongtuning data provides strongconfirmingconfirming

evidenceevidence for the existence of God.for the existence of God. Faith,Faith,understood as a special mode of knowing similarunderstood as a special mode of knowing similarto our ethical (and epistemic) intuitions, stillto our ethical (and epistemic) intuitions, stillplays an essential roleplays an essential role.. [END][END]


86/156

CANT PROVE GOD OBJECTIONCANT PROVE GOD OBJECTION

Response: I do not claim to prove God, or evenResponse: I do not claim to prove God, or even

that God is the only adequate hypothesis tothat God is the only adequate hypothesis toexplain the universe. Rather, I claim that theexplain the universe. Rather, I claim that the

finefine--tuning data providestuning data provides confirming evidenceconfirming evidencefor the existence of God.for the existence of God. Faith, as a specialFaith, as a special

mode of knowing similar to ethical intuition ormode of knowing similar to ethical intuition or

conscience, still plays an essential role.conscience, still plays an essential role.[END][END]


87/156

WHO DESIGNED GOD OBJECTIONWHO DESIGNED GOD OBJECTION

An extraordinarily common objection. In his book,An extraordinarily common objection. In his book,Atheism: The Case Against God (1980), atheistAtheism: The Case Against God (1980), atheistGeorge Smith succinctly summarizes the objection asGeorge Smith succinctly summarizes the objection as

follows:follows:If the universe is wonderfully designed, surely GodIf the universe is wonderfully designed, surely Godis even more wonderfully designed. He must,is even more wonderfully designed. He must,therefore, have had a designer even more wonderfultherefore, have had a designer even more wonderful

than He is. Ifthan He is. IfGodGoddid not require a designer, thendid not require a designer, thenthere is no reason why such a relatively lessthere is no reason why such a relatively lesswonderful thing as the universe needed one.wonderful thing as the universe needed one.


88/156

The idea behind the objection is that sinceThe idea behind the objection is that since

explanation must stop somewhere, we are betterexplanation must stop somewhere, we are betteroff accepting the universe as the ultimate bruteoff accepting the universe as the ultimate brute

fact than God as the ultimate brute fact,fact than God as the ultimate brute fact,since the latter just transfers the problem ofsince the latter just transfers the problem of

design up one level.design up one level.


89/156

Objection would hold if:Objection would hold if:

Anthropomorphic God:Anthropomorphic God:

Presumably, if God had a physical

brain, or even a finite mind, then thesame fine-tuning problem would

confront the existence of Godsbrain or mind: e.g., the matter

composing Gods brain would haveto be organized in just the right way

for God to think.

God of Classical TheismGod of Classical Theism notnot


90/156

God ofClassical TheismGod ofClassical Theism notnot

AnthropomorphicAnthropomorphicThe God of traditional theism, both East andThe God of traditional theism, both East and

West, has always been conceived of asWest, has always been conceived of as infinite andinfinite andunboundedunbounded, and thus with little, and thus with little or no internalor no internal

complexitycomplexity. Without internal complexity,. Without internal complexity,however, there is no need to be designed or finehowever, there is no need to be designed or fine--

tuned.tuned.

GOD

Note: Arrows represent Godas unbounded and infinite.


91/156

Real IssueReal Issue

Therefore, the real issue is the plausibility of suchTherefore, the real issue is the plausibility of suchan infinite being existing and creating a finean infinite being existing and creating a fine--tunedtuneduniverse versus such a universe existing as anuniverse versus such a universe existing as an

enormously lucky accident.enormously lucky accident.

GOD

A Lucky Accident?[Ink Spill Theory]

Which is moreplausible?


92/156

Given the degree of fineGiven the degree of fine--tuning necessary fortuning necessary for

life, many find it enormously implausible tolife, many find it enormously implausible tobelieve that a lifebelieve that a life--permitting universe exists as apermitting universe exists as a

brute fact. Thus, even though no one has shownbrute fact. Thus, even though no one has shownthat the God hypothesis is coherent, many findthat the God hypothesis is coherent, many find

it far more plausible.it far more plausible.

Confirmation Approach: PoliticalConfirmation Approach: Political


93/156

Confirmation Approach: PoliticalConfirmation Approach: Political

AnalogyAnalogy Your choice is between candidate A and candidate B.Your choice is between candidate A and candidate B.

[Candidate A is analogous to God and candidate B to the non[Candidate A is analogous to God and candidate B to the non--theistic hypothesis.]theistic hypothesis.]

People have had doubts about both candidate A and B.People have had doubts about both candidate A and B.(Analogous to situation before evidence of fine(Analogous to situation before evidence of fine--tuning).tuning).

New and serious problems come to light with candidate BNew and serious problems come to light with candidate B e.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. (Analogous to thee.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. (Analogous to thenew evidence of finenew evidence of fine--tuning.)tuning.)


94/156

Political AnalogyPolitical Analogy--continuedcontinued

Although the new evidence does not directly address yourAlthough the new evidence does not directly address yourdoubts about candidate A, it nonetheless gives you gooddoubts about candidate A, it nonetheless gives you goodreason to vote for A over B (given you have to vote).reason to vote for A over B (given you have to vote).

In the same way,In the same way, the finethe fine--tuning evidence shows atheism istuning evidence shows atheism isway more implausible than we might have thoughtway more implausible than we might have thought, although it, although itdoes notdoes not directlydirectlyaddress the prior doubts we might have hadaddress the prior doubts we might have hadabout how a being like God could exist. Nonetheless,about how a being like God could exist. Nonetheless, bybysignificantly decreasing the plausibility of the alternative nonsignificantly decreasing the plausibility of the alternative non--theistic hypotheses, it gives us good reason to believe in Godtheistic hypotheses, it gives us good reason to believe in God..

[End][End]

Intelligent Design?Intelligent Design?


95/156

Intelligent Design?Intelligent Design?

Two Key DifferencesTwo Key Differences

1.1. TheThe--Fine Tuning argument concerns the cosmicFine Tuning argument concerns the cosmicconditions necessary for evolution to even takeconditions necessary for evolution to even takeplace. Thus, this argument is perfectly compatibleplace. Thus, this argument is perfectly compatible

with belief in evolution.with belief in evolution.

2.2. There isThere is nono claim being made that theism is aclaim being made that theism is ascientific hypothesisscientific hypothesis. Rather, it is a metaphysical. Rather, it is a metaphysical

hypothesis. The point brings up the God of thehypothesis. The point brings up the God of theGaps issue . . .Gaps issue . . .

EndEnd


96/156

God of Gaps Issue:God of Gaps Issue:

Is the God explanation being invoked as aIs the God explanation being invoked as asubstitute for a scientific explanation? No!substitute for a scientific explanation? No!Scientific explanations always invoke laws andScientific explanations always invoke laws and

initial conditions, but they cannot themselvesinitial conditions, but they cannot themselvesexplain why the most fundamental laws andexplain why the most fundamental laws andinitial conditions are the way they are.initial conditions are the way they are. One mustOne musteither accept these as a brute fact or offer another noneither accept these as a brute fact or offer another non--

scientific kind of explanationscientific kind of explanatione.g., either a personale.g., either a personalexplanation in terms of purpose or someexplanation in terms of purpose or somemetaphysical principle. . . .metaphysical principle. . . .


97/156

ClockClock--Universe AnalogyUniverse Analogy

To understand this, think of the universe as analogous to a clock,To understand this, think of the universe as analogous to a clock,and scientists as analogous to little beings living in the clock whoand scientists as analogous to little beings living in the clock whouncover the laws and mechanisms by which the clock works. Theyuncover the laws and mechanisms by which the clock works. They

in turn explain events in the clock by appealing to its laws andin turn explain events in the clock by appealing to its laws and

mechanisms.T

his itself, however, can never explainmechanisms.T

his itself, however, can never explainwhywhy the clockthe clockexists or is constructed in the way that it is. To explain this, oneexists or is constructed in the way that it is. To explain this, one

would ordinarily appeal to purposewould ordinarily appeal to purpose e.g., some personal beinge.g., some personal being

constructed the clock this way to tell timeconstructed the clock this way to tell time..

God Explanation:Why does the clock exist?Why is itconstructed in the way it is?

Scientific Explanation:Howdoes the clock work?

What mechanism caused the alarm to go off? Etc.


98/156

Summary of God of Gaps IssueSummary of God of Gaps Issue

A scientific explanation, therefore, provides theA scientific explanation, therefore, provides theHOWHOW of the universes operation, whereas theof the universes operation, whereas the

God explanation purports to explain theGod explanation purports to explain theWHYWHY

there is a universe with these sorts of laws.there is a universe with these sorts of laws.TheThe God explanationGod explanation, therefore, operates at, therefore, operates atanotheranother levellevel than the scientific explanationthan the scientific explanation, and, and

thus shouldthus shouldnotnot

be considered a competitor.be considered a competitor.EndEnd


99/156

THEORYOfEVERYTHING OBJECTION:THEORYOfEVERYTHING OBJECTION:

OBJECTION:OBJECTION: How do you know that physicists will notHow do you know that physicists will notdevelop a new theory, such as the sodevelop a new theory, such as the so--called Theory ofcalled Theory ofEverything, that will explain why our universe has theEverything, that will explain why our universe has theconstants it does?constants it does?

RESPONSE:As astrophysicists Bernard Carr and MartinAs astrophysicists Bernard Carr and MartinRees note, even if all apparentlyRees note, even if all apparently anthropicanthropic coincidencescoincidences

could be explained [in terms of some theory of everything],could be explained [in terms of some theory of everything],it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated byit would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated byphysical theory happened also to be those propitious forphysical theory happened also to be those propitious forlife (Carr and Rees 1979: 612).life (Carr and Rees 1979: 612).

[End][End]


100/156

OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OBJECTIONOTHER FORMS OF LIFE OBJECTION

Objection Stated:Objection Stated: Doesnt your argument assume thatDoesnt your argument assume thatcarbon based life is the only form of life there could be?carbon based life is the only form of life there could be?

Response:Response: No. It simply assumes that life requiresNo. It simply assumes that life requires

stable, reproducible complexity. A universe withoutstable, reproducible complexity. A universe withoutatoms, for instance, would not even have this. Besides,atoms, for instance, would not even have this. Besides,it is the existence ofit is the existence ofconscious, embodied agents,conscious, embodied agents, notnotmere life, that points to theistic design, since we nomere life, that points to theistic design, since we noreason to think that God merely values nonreason to think that God merely values non--sentientsentientlife, such as viruses or bacteria.life, such as viruses or bacteria.

[End][End]

OTHER LIFEOTHER LIFE--PERMITTING LAWSPERMITTING LAWS


101/156

OBJECTIONOBJECTION

Small red circle in center is life-permitting range for laws, etc., of the universe.

The surrounding blue area is the area for which we can determine whether laws,etc., are life-permitting. I call the blue area the epistemically illuminated region.

The fact that dart hits the life-permitting bulls-eye in the blue area is evidence

for the aiming hypothesis, even if we do not know how many bulls-eyes are

in the dark area. (The epistemically illuminated region also provides the

comparison range for the constants.) [END]

SCALE OBJECTIONSCALE OBJECTION


102/156

Small red circle in center represents the life-permitting values for the constants

of physics. Surrounding green area is the area for which we can determine

whether the constants are life permitting. I call this the epistemicallyepistemically

illuminatedilluminated region. The fact that the dart hits the life-permitting bulls-eye inthe green area is evidence for the aiming hypothesis, even if we do not know

how many bulls-eyes are in the dark area. This epistemically illuminated regionprovides the comparison range for the constants: what is significant is the fact

that the region of life-permitting values (red) is small compared to the region we

can see ((greengreen).). End.


103/156

NO PROBABILITYOBJECTIONNO PROBABILITYOBJECTION

Remember, in the fineRemember, in the fine--tuning argument the relevant sort oftuning argument the relevant sort ofprobability isprobability is epistemic probability (epistemic probability (that is, degree of surprise),that is, degree of surprise),NOT statistical or theoretical probability. This sort of probabilityNOT statistical or theoretical probability. This sort of probabilityis used all the time in scientific confirmation. Example:is used all the time in scientific confirmation. Example:

The strongest evidence for evolution [understood as the thesis ofThe strongest evidence for evolution [understood as the thesis ofcommon ancestry] is the concurrence of so manycommon ancestry] is the concurrence of so manyindependentindependentprobabilities.probabilities. That such different disciplines as biochemistry andThat such different disciplines as biochemistry andcomparative anatomy, genetics and biogeography should all pointcomparative anatomy, genetics and biogeography should all pointtoward the same conclusion is very difficult to attribute totoward the same conclusion is very difficult to attribute to

coincidence"coincidence" (Edward Dodson, 1984, p. 68).(Edward Dodson, 1984, p. 68).

The argument here is one based onThe argument here is one based on improbabilityimprobabilityandandcoincidence,coincidence, but since evolution only occurred once, it is clearlybut since evolution only occurred once, it is clearlyNOT statistical or even theoretical probability.NOT statistical or even theoretical probability. [End[End]]

WHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUTWHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUT


104/156

WHAT ISSO GOOD ABOUTWHAT ISSO GOOD ABOUT

EMBODIED MORAL AGENTS?EMBODIED MORAL AGENTS?

Embodied moral agents can realize certainEmbodied moral agents can realize certain

goods that a reality without such agents couldgoods that a reality without such agents couldnot realize: for example, being vulnerable to onenot realize: for example, being vulnerable to one

another. Thus, God would have a reason toanother. Thus, God would have a reason tocreate a reality that contained embodied moralcreate a reality that contained embodied moral

agents, which would require a system of lawsagents, which would require a system of laws

that is, a universe.that is, a universe. [End][End]

HigherHigher Level Types of FineLevel Types of Fine tuningtuning


105/156

HigherHigher--Level Types of FineLevel Types of Fine--tuningtuningExample:Example:

Carbon is so uniquely fit for its biological role, itsCarbon is so uniquely fit for its biological role, itsvarious compounds so vital to the existence of life,various compounds so vital to the existence of life,

that we may repeat the aphorism, If carbon did notthat we may repeat the aphorism, If carbon did not

exist, it would have to be invented. (Michaelexist, it would have to be invented. (MichaelDenton,Denton, Natures DestinyNatures Destiny, p. 116)., p. 116).


106/156

C b i h B kb f DNAC b i h B kb f DNA


107/156

Carbon is the Backbone of DNACarbon is the Backbone of DNA

[End][End]

DNA

IS MULTIVERSECOMPATIBLEIS MULTIVERSECOMPATIBLE


108/156

WITHTHEISMWITHTHEISMI say yes . . . . It fits in which infinite creativity ofI say yes . . . . It fits in which infinite creativity ofGod and the historical trend of science.God and the historical trend of science.

Humans continue to find that the universe isHumans continue to find that the universe is

larger than we previously thought.larger than we previously thought.

earth

Aristotles Conception of Universe

(500 BC 1400 AD).

Modern Day Universe: more than 300billion galaxies with 300 billion stars per

galaxy.


109/156

Hubble Deep Field View of a pinhead size portion of the universe. Each speck is a galaxy.


110/156

M h iM h i C i dC i d


111/156

MechanismsMechanisms----ContinuedContinued

iii) A Mechanism To Convert The Energy Ofiii) A Mechanism To Convert The Energy OfInflatonInflaton Field To The Normal Mass/EnergyField To The Normal Mass/Energy

We Find In Our Universe. [Actual Mechanism:We Find In Our Universe. [Actual Mechanism:

E = mcE = mc2 +2 +

coupling betweencoupling between inflatoninflaton field andfield andmatter fieldsmatter fields.].]

iv) A Mechanism That Allows Enough Variationiv) A Mechanism That Allows Enough VariationIn Constants Of Physics Among Universes.In Constants Of Physics Among Universes.[[SuperstringTheorySuperstringTheory.].]

I AdditiI Additi


112/156

In Addition:In Addition:

TheThe background lawsbackground laws of inflationaryof inflationarycosmology/superstring theory must be right incosmology/superstring theory must be right inorder for even one of the universes that areorder for even one of the universes that are

produced to be (intelligent) life sustaining.produced to be (intelligent) life sustaining. Examples:Examples:As we saw before, without gravity,As we saw before, without gravity,

electromagnetism, or the strong nuclear force,electromagnetism, or the strong nuclear force,there would be no organisms with enough stablethere would be no organisms with enough stable

complexity to count as a life form. Without thecomplexity to count as a life form. Without theprinciple of quantization or the Pauliprinciple of quantization or the Pauli--ExclusionExclusionprinciple, no complex chemistry.principle, no complex chemistry. [End][End]

E t SlidE t Slid


113/156

Extra SlidesExtra Slides

REALLYBIG PIC URE:REALLYBIG PIC URE:

BEAUTY ANDBEAUTY AND


114/156

BEAUTYANDBEAUTYAND

DISCOVERABILITYDISCOVERABILITY

The Really Big PictureThe Really Big PictureF t f U i th t S t Di iF t f U i th t S t Di i


115/156

Features of Universe that Suggest DivineFeatures of Universe that Suggest Divine

Design:Design:1. The Fine1. The Fine--Tuning of the Cosmos forTuning of the Cosmos for LifeLife..

2. Fine2. Fine--tuning fortuning for Beauty and EleganceBeauty and Elegance of the Lawsof the Laws

and Underlying Principles of Nature.and Underlying Principles of Nature.3. The3. The Intelligibility and DiscoverabilityIntelligibility and Discoverabilityof the Laws ofof the Laws ofNature.Nature.

4. The Existence of4. The Existence ofConsciousnessConsciousness..

Lets illustrate (2) and (3) above with a fewLets illustrate (2) and (3) above with a fewquotations:quotations:

Beauty of LawsBeauty of Laws


116/156

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics and a convincedSteven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics and a convincedatheist:atheist:

ItIt isis preciselyprecisely inin thethe applicationapplication ofof purepure mathematicsmathematics totophysicsphysics thatthat thethe effectivenesseffectiveness ofof aestheticaesthetic judgmentsjudgments isis mostmost

amazingamazing.. mathematicalmathematical structuresstructures thatthat confessedlyconfessedly arearedevelopeddeveloped byby mathematiciansmathematicians becausebecause theythey seekseek aa sortsort of ofbeautybeauty areare oftenoften foundfound laterlater toto bebe extraordinarilyextraordinarily valuablevaluable bybyphysicistsphysicists.. (Dreams(Dreams ofof aa FinalFinal TheoryTheory 19921992,, pp.. 153153))..

Later Weinberg says,Later Weinberg says,

I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautifulI have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautiful

than strictly necessary (p. 250).than strictly necessary (p. 250).

Intelligibilit and Disco erabilitIntelligibilit and Disco erabilit


117/156

Intelligibility and DiscoverabilityIntelligibility and Discoverability

Albert Einstein onAlbert Einstein on IntelligibilityIntelligibility::

The most unintelligible thing about the universe isThe most unintelligible thing about the universe isthat it is intelligible at all.that it is intelligible at all.

Eugene Wigner, a major founder of QuantumEugene Wigner, a major founder of QuantumMechanics onMechanics on discoverabilitydiscoverability::

Wrote Major Essay: The UnreasonableWrote Major Essay: The UnreasonableEffectiveness of Mathematics in the PhysicalEffectiveness of Mathematics in the PhysicalSciences.Sciences.



118/156

Divine Creation


Fine-Tuningfor life

Laws Fine-

Tuned for

Beauty/Elegance

Intelligibility and

Discoverability

of Universe at

Fundamental Level

Existence ofConsciousness

Case for Divine Creation Compared to Case forCase for Divine Creation Compared to Case for


119/156

pp

Common AncestryCommon Ancestry

As biologists and geneticist Edward Dodson summarizes thecase for evolution understood as common ancestry:

All [pieces of evidence] concur in suggestingevolution with

varying degrees of cogency, but most can be explained onother bases . . . . The strongest evidence for evolution is the

concurrence of so many independent probabilities. That such

different disciplines as biochemistry and comparative

anatomy, genetics and biogeography should all point toward

the same conclusion is very difficult to attribute to

coincidence.

Argument fordivine creation is similar to this.Argument fordivine creation is similar to this. [End]

LINKED CONSTANT OBJECTION


120/156

According to Richard Dawkins,

physicists have come up with other explanations [of the fine-tuning]. One of them is to say that these six constants are not freeto vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that that theyare locked in as the circumference and diameter of a circle. That

reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fitthe bill. (Time, God versus Science, Nov. 5, 2006).

As I will now show, Dawkins argument fails since it does notdistinguish between cases in which two parameters are linked by

mathematical necessity from those that are linked by physicallaws:

Bolt Example


121/156

Bolt ExampleSuppose one were told that the radius of a bolt had to be between 4

and 5 millimeters, with the possible ranges that the factory couldproduce being 0 to 10 millimeters. So, one might conclude, its radiushad to be fine-tuned to 1/10. Now, suppose someone else told onethat the circumference had to be tuned to 4 - 5 millimeters, with afactory-possible range of 0 to 10 millimeters; this would yield a 1/10fine-tuning for the circumference. Not realizing that the radius andcircumference are related by mathematical necessity, one mightmultiply the two fine-tunings together, resulting in 1/100 for the totalfine-tuning. This is illustrated by next slide:


122/156

Radius in millimeters

Ones Mistaken Representation: Green region represents mistaken

requirements for bolt if circumference and radius are truly

independent. Blue + green region represents all possible values one

mistakenly thinks that the circumference and radius could have. The

ratio of the green region to the entire blue + green region is 1/100.


123/156

Radius

Correct Analysis: Since ofmathematical necessity the circumference is

times the radius (C = R), the only jointly possible values for C and Rare on the blue-green line, with everything else [in red] being

impossible. Since the fine-tuning is the ratio of the life-permitting

values [green part of line in small square region] to the possible values

[entire line], the fine-tuning is actually only 1/10.

Constants Linked by a Law of Nature


124/156

C1

Consider a case of two constants linked by a physical law given by

the straight line, with the same fine-tuning (1/10) for both C1 and

C2 as for the circumference and radius in the bolt example.

Constants Linked by a Law of Nature


125/156

C1

Unlike the case of the circumference and radius of a circle, there are

many mathematically possible laws linking C2 and C1, as

represented by the dashed lines. Most alternative laws will not go

through the green area, since it is relatively small.


126/156

C1

Given the actual physical law linking C2 with C1 [solid line], there is only a

1/10 fine tuning as before [length ofgreen part of line divided by entire

length of line]. Nonetheless, unlike the radius and circumference example,

there is an additional fine-tuning of the law itself namely, that the law is

such that it goes through the green area. So, there are still two independent

cases of fine-tuning: that of the law being such that it goes through the

green area, and that given this, the joint value of falls within the

green life-permitting area instead of somewhere else on the line.

Conclusion


127/156

Conclusion

Because he did not properly distinguish

between parameters linked by mathematical

necessity and those linked by contingent laws

of nature, Dawkins analogy andcorresponding argument fails.

END

List ofConditions/Constraints forList ofConditions/Constraints for


128/156

LifeLifeThe following slides present a running list of all the conditions thatThe following slides present a running list of all the conditions thatwe have solid lines of physical reasoning to think are are necessarywe have solid lines of physical reasoning to think are are necessaryfor the kind of complexity necessary for embodied consciousfor the kind of complexity necessary for embodied consciousagents. The list is divided into the following types ofagents. The list is divided into the following types ofconditions/constraints:conditions/constraints:

1. Building blocks of material1. Building blocks of material e.g., atoms that can take part ine.g., atoms that can take part incomplex chemistry.complex chemistry.

2. Stability of matter2. Stability of matter

3a. Energy Sources for that life and livable locations3a. Energy Sources for that life and livable locations e.g., generale.g., generalconditions for lifeconditions for life--supporting stars and planets.supporting stars and planets.

3b. Constraints arising from big bang for star formation3b. Constraints arising from big bang for star formation

3c. Life3c. Life--permitting constraints on nuclear fusion in stars.permitting constraints on nuclear fusion in stars.

List ofConditions/ConstraintsList ofConditions/Constraints ----


129/156

ContinuedContinuedImaginatively, when looking at the followingImaginatively, when looking at the followingconditions/constraints, it is helpful to think of some superconditions/constraints, it is helpful to think of some super--being such as Star Treks Next Generations Q trying tobeing such as Star Treks Next Generations Q trying toconstructing a lifeconstructing a life--permitting universe by first creating a lawpermitting universe by first creating a lawor some other mechanism/adjustment to institute thator some other mechanism/adjustment to institute thatcondition (e.g., C1 below), and then realizing that a secondcondition (e.g., C1 below), and then realizing that a secondcondition is needed (e.g., C2) and instituting something tocondition is needed (e.g., C2) and instituting something tomake that condition come about, and so forth. Eventually,make that condition come about, and so forth. Eventually,the being is able to construct a lifethe being is able to construct a life--permitting universe afterpermitting universe afterinstituting the right set of laws, mechanisms, and adjustmentsinstituting the right set of laws, mechanisms, and adjustments

to satisfy the 24 separate conditions/constraints listed below.to satisfy the 24 separate conditions/constraints listed below.The superThe super--being begins with building an atom:being begins with building an atom:

Building Blocks for Material Complexity:Building Blocks for Material Complexity:

Th ATh A


130/156

The AtomThe Atom

C1: The existence of matter instead of pure energy:C1: The existence of matter instead of pure energy:Matter/AntiMatter/Anti--matter Asymmetry = 50%.matter Asymmetry = 50%.

C2: Existence of basic building blocks for nucleus. [E.g.,C2: Existence of basic building blocks for nucleus. [E.g.,protons and neutrons in our world]. 50%protons and neutrons in our world]. 50%

C3: Existence of something that plays role of electron: 50%.C3: Existence of something that plays role of electron: 50%.[E.g., A merely negatively charged particle is not sufficient[E.g., A merely negatively charged particle is not sufficient for instance, if the electron were as heavy as thefor instance, if the electron were as heavy as the muonmuon ----the heavy sister of the electron which is about 400 times asthe heavy sister of the electron which is about 400 times asheavy as the electronheavy as the electron stable atoms could not exist.]stable atoms could not exist.]

C4. Some force that plays the role of the electric force to holdC4. Some force that plays the role of the electric force to holdelectrons in orbit. [Electromagnetic force]. 50%electrons in orbit. [Electromagnetic force]. 50%

Building an AtomBuilding an Atom---- ContinuedContinued


131/156

Building an AtomBuilding an Atom---- ContinuedContinued

C5: Existence of some force that plays the role of holdingC5: Existence of some force that plays the role of holdingprotons and neutrons together [Strong Nuclear Force]: 50%protons and neutrons together [Strong Nuclear Force]: 50%

C6: The force in C5 being short range, instead of long range likeC6: The force in C5 being short range, instead of long range likegravity and electromagnetism, otherwise nuclei of distantgravity and electromagnetism, otherwise nuclei of distantatoms would be pulled together. 50%.atoms would be pulled together. 50%.

C7: The ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagneticC7: The ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagneticforce being sufficiently strong to hold nuclei together. 1/2force being sufficiently strong to hold nuclei together. 1/2

C8: A principle to keep electrons in fixed orbits, instead of fallingC8: A principle to keep electrons in fixed orbits, instead of fallinginto the nucleus. [Principle of Quantization]: 50%into the nucleus. [Principle of Quantization]: 50%

C9: A principle that keeps all the electrons from piling into theC9: A principle that keeps all the electrons from piling into thefirst orbital [Paulifirst orbital [Pauli--Exclusion Principle]: 50%Exclusion Principle]: 50%

Stability of MatterStability of Matter


132/156

Stability of MatterStability of Matter

C10:C10: A principle that keeps the charges in matterA principle that keeps the charges in matterfrom rearranging themselves to form a superfrom rearranging themselves to form a super--densedense mass [Paulimass [Pauli--Exclusion Principle]:50%Exclusion Principle]:50%

C11:C11: A principle that keeps protons and neutronsA principle that keeps protons and neutronsfrom decaying into photonsfrom decaying into photons [Baryon[Baryon

Conservation]:Conservation]: 50%50%

C12:C12: A principle that keeps electrons fromA principle that keeps electrons from

decayingdecaying intointo photons/neutrinos [Conservationphotons/neutrinos [Conservationof Electricof Electric CCharge]:harge]: 50%50%

Existence of Embodied ConsciousExistence of Embodied Conscious

Agents Supporting Stars andAgents Supporting Stars and


133/156

Agents Supporting Stars andAgents Supporting Stars and

PlanetsPlanetsC13: Existence of universal attractive force between materialC13: Existence of universal attractive force between materialbodies (instead of, for instance, a universal repulsive forcebodies (instead of, for instance, a universal repulsive forceor no force acting between all masses); without this, no starsor no force acting between all masses); without this, no stars and hence no energy sources for life to evolveand hence no energy sources for life to evolve and noand no

planets or other significantly large solid objects to supportplanets or other significantly large solid objects to supportembodied conscious beings. [Gravity plays this role]. = 50%embodied conscious beings. [Gravity plays this role]. = 50%

C14: Planetary Orbit Stability Requirement: universal attractiveC14: Planetary Orbit Stability Requirement: universal attractivethat force does not fall 1/rthat force does not fall 1/r33 or faster: 50%. [Force ofor faster: 50%. [Force of

gravity falls off as 1/rgravity falls off as 1/r

22

]: 50%]: 50%C15: Some means of transmitting energy of stars to planets soC15: Some means of transmitting energy of stars to planets solife can evolve [Electromagnetic force via electromagneticlife can evolve [Electromagnetic force via electromagneticradiation plays this role]: 50%radiation plays this role]: 50%

Stars and PlanetsStars and Planets----ContinuedContinued


134/156

Stars and PlanetsStars and Planets ContinuedContinued

C16a*: Strength of gravity (relative to strength ofC16a*: Strength of gravity (relative to strength ofmaterials) for evolution of beings withmaterials) for evolution of beings withsufficiently large brains to be conscious agents:sufficiently large brains to be conscious agents:

1/101/103131 of range of force strengths in nature.of range of force strengths in nature. [Note:[Note:Strength of materials determined by strength of electromagnetic force and mass ofStrength of materials determined by strength of electromagnetic force and mass ofelectron via the Paulielectron via the Pauli--exclusion principle.]exclusion principle.]

C16b*: fineC16b*: fine--tuning of strength of gravity for long,tuning of strength of gravity for long,stable stars that can support life: 1/10stable stars that can support life: 1/103737 of rangeof range

of force strengths in nature.of force strengths in nature.

Conditions Arising from Big BangConditions Arising from Big Bang


135/156

For Star FormationFor Star Formation(C17) Density Fluctuations coming out of big bang not being too large(C17) Density Fluctuations coming out of big bang not being too large

(otherwise mostly black holes), but large enough for galaxies and stars to(otherwise mostly black holes), but large enough for galaxies and stars tocondense out. [Degree of Finecondense out. [Degree of Fine--tuning cannot be estimated because oftuning cannot be estimated because oflack of welllack of well--defined comparison range.]defined comparison range.]

(C18) Curvature of space. Must be fine(C18) Curvature of space. Must be fine--tuned to 1/10tuned to 1/106060 of zero; Otherwise,of zero; Otherwise,either the universe does not last long enough for stars to form or spaceeither the universe does not last long enough for stars to form or space

expands too rapidly for stars to form. [Possiblyexpands too rapidly for stars to form. [Possibly explained by inflationaryexplained by inflationarycosmology or acosmology or a law that requires it to be zero.law that requires it to be zero. Thus,Thus, conservativeconservativeestimate:estimate: 50%].50%].

(C19) Photon/Baryon(C19) Photon/Baryon Ratio:Ratio: 50%50%

(C20) Low Entropy: Enormous(C20) Low Entropy: Enormous finefine--tuningtuning required. [Mightrequired. [Might be explicable bybe explicable bynewnew law setting thelaw setting the disdis--uniformity in the gravitational field to zero at theuniformity in the gravitational field to zero at thebeginning; some claim it can be explained by inflationary cosmology; thusbeginning; some claim it can be explained by inflationary cosmology; thusa conservative estimate is 50%a conservative estimate is 50%

(C21)* The fine(C21)* The fine--tuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: 1/10tuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: 1/105050

[No plausible way of accounting for this except possibly by[No plausible way of accounting for this except possibly by multiversemultiverse]]hypothesis.hypothesis.

Conditions Nuclear Fusion for LifeConditions Nuclear Fusion for Life


136/156

Optimality:Optimality:

(C22)* The fine(C22)* The fine--tuning of the weak force: 1/10tuning of the weak force: 1/1099 of range ofof range offorce strengths. [If weak force is too small, ratio of neutronsforce strengths. [If weak force is too small, ratio of neutronsto protonsto protons 1, and Big Bang produces almost all helium 4:1, and Big Bang produces almost all helium 4:little or no water and stars would be unstable helium burninglittle or no water and stars would be unstable helium burning

stars.]stars.](C23)* The neutron(C23)* The neutron--proton mass difference: 1/70 ofproton mass difference: 1/70 of

neutron/proton mass. If mass difference is too large, theneutron/proton mass. If mass difference is too large, thecritical first step in nuclear fusion in stars ( p + pcritical first step in nuclear fusion in stars ( p + p pp--d nucleid nuclei[deuterium])[deuterium]) is no longer possible.is no longer possible.

(C24). Ratio of Strong to Electromagnetic force must be right(C24). Ratio of Strong to Electromagnetic force must be rightfor stars to produce a lifefor stars to produce a life--optimal amount/proportion ofoptimal amount/proportion ofcarbon and oxygen: 50%. [Often this is claimed to be muchcarbon and oxygen: 50%. [Often this is claimed to be muchmore finemore fine--tuned than 50%, but such estimates are based ontuned than 50%, but such estimates are based onflawed calculations.]flawed calculations.]

Other Possible CasesOther Possible Cases


137/156

Other Possible CasesOther Possible Cases

A. Existence of weak force?A. Existence of weak force?

B. FineB. Fine--tuning of weak scale?tuning of weak scale?

Definite Quantitative CasesDefinite Quantitative Cases


138/156

Definite Quantitative CasesDefinite Quantitative CasesT

he literature has almost entirely focused on fineT

he literature has almost entirely focused on fine--tuning of thetuning of theparameters/constants of physics. Below is a summary of theparameters/constants of physics. Below is a summary of thecases listed above (denoted by a *) that I think are both wellcases listed above (denoted by a *) that I think are both well--established and for which there is no plausible natural, nonestablished and for which there is no plausible natural, non--adad--hoc explanation in sight:hoc explanation in sight:

1. The fine1. The fine--tuning of the weak force: 1/10tuning of the weak force: 1/1099 of range of forceof range of forcestrengths.strengths.

2. The neutron2. The neutron--proton mass difference: 1/70 of theproton mass difference: 1/70 of theneutron/proton mass.neutron/proton mass.

3. Fine3. Fine--tuning of gravity: at least 1/10tuning of gravity: at least 1/103131

of range of forceof range of forcestrengths.strengths.

4. The fine4. The fine--tuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: attuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: atleast 1/10least 1/105050 of range of values allowed by model.of range of values allowed by model.

How Surprised Should we be?How Surprised Should we be?


139/156

HowSurprised Should we be?HowSurprised Should we be?

Except for the definitely quantitative cases (e.g., theExcept for the definitely quantitative cases (e.g., thecosmological constant/dark energy), I put down 50% as ancosmological constant/dark energy), I put down 50% as anestimate of the epistemic probability for a certainestimate of the epistemic probability for a certaincondition/constraint being met. (Epistemic probability cancondition/constraint being met. (Epistemic probability canbe thought of as a way of measuring the rational degree ofbe thought of as a way of measuring the rational degree of

surprise, with the lower the epistemic probability, the moresurprise, with the lower the epistemic probability, the moresurprised one should be.)surprised one should be.)

50% is a very conservative estimate, since normally50% is a very conservative estimate, since normallywe take a specific condition/constraint being met as beingwe take a specific condition/constraint being met as being

much less probable, since there seems to be way more waysmuch less probable, since there seems to be way more waysfor a condition not to be met.for a condition not to be met. [Analogy: . ..][Analogy: . ..]

How SurprisedHow Surprised----ContinuedContinued


140/156

HowSurprisedHowSurprised ContinuedContinued

Although there is some overlap, mostAlthough there is some overlap, mostconditions/constraints listed above are largely independent.conditions/constraints listed above are largely independent.So, we can multiple the epistemic probabilities together toSo, we can multiple the epistemic probabilities together toestimate the total amount of surprise. Even neglecting theestimate the total amount of surprise. Even neglecting thequantitative cases, we obtain:quantitative cases, we obtain:

1/21/22424 ,,

which is about one in 16 million. Still very impressive.which is about one in 16 million. Still very impressive.

ENDEND

Dimensionless ConstantsDimensionless Constants


141/156

Dimensionless ConstantsDimensionless Constants

First note that the fineFirst note that the fine--tuning of the constants istuning of the constants isalways defined in a dimensionless way, since it is thealways defined in a dimensionless way, since it is theratio of the liferatio of the life--permitting range to the comparisonpermitting range to the comparisonrange. [Examples of finerange. [Examples of fine--tuning of gravity and oftuning of gravity and of

cosmological constant.] So, this is never an issue.cosmological constant.] So, this is never an issue.But a related issue is that when we speak of theBut a related issue is that when we speak of thefinefine--tuning of a constant, we are always holdingtuning of a constant, we are always holdingsome other constants the same. To avoidsome other constants the same. To avoid

duplicating cases of fineduplicating cases of fine--tuning, we must be cleartuning, we must be clearon what else is being held the same.on what else is being held the same.

Dim

fine-tuning power point final version 10-3-08

Documents