Cosmological Fine Tuning

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So. What do you good folks think about the multiverse theory and cosmological fine tuning?

Paul Davies (http://cosmos.asu.edu/) is really into this kind of thing. Here is a paper I foud under his website.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/paper...s%2083.pdf

I'll read it after I read an old one, on the same topic, that I have. I'll read the above one when I get ink for my printe

Best wishes,

Pete

I find it difficult to swallow that this universe is fine-tuned for life when almost all of it is uninhabitable to known life.
There's also the matter that we seem to be the only ones at this particular party so far.

Further, "fine-tuned" compared to what? Universes that are completely uninhabitable? What about the universe where every place is suitable for life? The sun, moon, and stars all have life forms in them? That sounds more 'fine-tuned' than this one but it's all conjecture anyway considering we have nothing to compare our universe to outside of multiverse theory.

[Anomalocaris]

I find it difficult to swallow that this universe is fine-tuned for life when almost all of it is uninhabitable to known life.

Fine tuning is not talking how much of our universe happen to be habitable to known life given the current circumstances. It is talking about what range of values the fundamental dimensionaless constants of the laws of physics must fall into in order for it to even be theoretically possible for known life to exist at all at anywhere, during any part of universe's existence.

The behavior of the laws of physics are governed by a number of fundamental dimensionless constants - coupling constant of electromegnetic interaction, gravitational coupling constant, strong force coupling constant, and proton electron mass ratio constant. The value of these constants can be measured, but they can not be derived from any known fundamental principle. So why they are the value they are is not known. Although repeated experiments in our universe has never shown that these values has, will, or can change, or can be different from one place to another, There is no known principle that says they can't.

So one school of thought is these constants in fact are not constrained to have the value we observe. Working out the consequences of these constants having a different value reveals that any one of them really has to change only very little for it to be impossible, even theoretically, for known life to ever exist anywhere in the universe.

The fine tuning question deals with the statistical unlikelihood of several theoretically freely variable physical properties to all assume precisely the right value to make life possible.

Of course one could immediately challenge whether these fundamental constants are in fact not constrained by some even deeper principle. Perhaps these values has to be the values they are. In which case there is no issue of fine, or even coarse, tuning of any kind. It is the way it is because it can't be any other way. We just haven't found out why yet.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Fine tuning is not talking how much of our universe happen to be habitable to known life given the current circumstances.

I know - I've done the song and dance of doing more proper responses to this arguement, but the idea is that the very idea of a 'fine-tuned' universe to be flawed.

We simply have no data on any range of possible universes and the multiverse theory doesn't offer any viable alteratives. Multiverse theory (depending on who you talk to - I have issues with a lot of quantum and string theory because some of their adherants seem to like to make rather fantastical leaps) doesn't really offer anything new in this regard. At best, if we knew the full range of possible universes from this theory (and the statistics on life possibility in each one), then we could see just how possible life was, but multiverse theory doesn't do much other than say that quantum particles can take all possible paths - the paths are just new universes.

So given how flawed the 'fine-tuned' wharbl garbl is, multiverse as it is adds nothing to that discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are we willing to assume that the "purpose" of any universe is to make life possible in the first place, or that there is any purpose whatsoever? The root of this entire line of questioning is very easily dismissed as projecting our own bias onto the cosmos. This universe holds life, if it did not we wouldn't be asking the question. That doesn't mean that the question or life itself are significant in any way except to ourselves.

[Pete]

I know - I've done the song and dance of doing more proper responses to this arguement, but the idea is that the very idea of a 'fine-tuned' universe to be flawed.

My responses are just fine. But merely stating otherwise is not a logical response. If people are taking the time to read my posts then we'd get off this fine tunng thing and get to what I keep saying that I want to discuss, i.e. Multiverse.

When I learned of the Multiverse theory the constants of nature being what they are now make sense.

Best regards

Pete

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

My responses are just fine. But merely stating otherwise is not a logical response. If people are taking the time to read my posts then we'd get off this fine tunng thing and get to what I keep saying that I want to discuss, i.e. Multiverse.

When I learned of the Multiverse theory the constants of nature being what they are now make sense.

Best regards

Pete

If you want to get off the talk about fine-tuning, then talk about multiverse and stop making your long responses about fine-tuning. We both know that the fine-tuning arguement is flawed and we don't need to go into deeper detail.
Multiverse theory basically states (to my understanding) that every possible outcome of every possible action exists as its own universe - including universes set on entirely difference universal constants, princlples, laws of physics, default levels of energy, and so on.

In any case, I've never been 100% on board with the idea because it's not really based on anything other than some wierd things that happen in the quantum world involving probabilistic outcomes - which is also something I've never completely bought.

The quantum world is the finest example of humans only being able to see so far into the world of the very small but quantum physicists of some schools of thought seem to make out our limitations on being able to percieve quantum actions as the same thing as quantum principles - for example - our inability to see the position and velocity of an atom at the same time or other 'spooky' actions of particles.

Multiverse seems to be a step even further than that in that it is a hypothosis based upon a theory based upon our inability to accurately see what's going on in the quantum world.

It's a mess. It's incomplete. and it's rife with scientists taking huge logical leaps on things we only half-understand, if that.

It's not that I'm bashing the scientists that work so very hard on understanding the quantum world - we've discovered a great many practical applications of our quantum theories that are still bringing in newer and more awesome fruits, but multiverse is an example of some physicists letting their imaginations go a little too wild.

[The Grand Nudger]

True enough, the seemingly limitless potential of the human mind to manufacture explanations with very little (or no) evidence is astounding. It's fun to consider, it allows the mind to wander, but we should probably exercise extreme caution in drawing conclusions from as of yet unsubstantiated theories. The constants "make sense" without a multiverse just as easily. It's not the cosmological constants themselves that insert a mystery, that honor belongs to other unspoken assumptions. Our own heads screw with us so hard that we often ask meaningless questions, or pursue areas of inquiry which produce absolutely nothing of merit.

[houseofcantor]

Why are you in such a hurry to judge me? I have no plans in judging anyone. Don't atheist have such rule they hold to?

Morality. We use it for judgement. I also have faith. That is used to share my identity; with things like evolution and emergence. There's a lovely pair. Those who share their identity with god lose their identity of self.

Thus multiverse is fail. Big-time. The strings are mathematical chicanery supported by faith - a shared identity - but it is becoming more obvious by the moment, string ain't theory. Even if; its predictions are of impassable branes and voids that serve no purpose other than flesh out some equations.

And from what? The measurement problem? How do you take a measurement that adds to infinity? Well you know how they do it in math. simplify it, dumb it down, solve for a few variables, scale it up - call it infinity. I'd rather call it decoherence. I'd like to call it superposition. That's gonna be the winner.

Oh, Top at 70; Higgs looks decent at 125.

Wanna hear something really crazy? There's a design flaw in mathematics. Us.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Wanna hear something really crazy? There's a design flaw in mathematics. Us.

That's okay. The robot overlords we'll eventually build will correct that flaw.

[Pete]

Thus multiverse is fail. Big-time. The strings are mathematical chicanery supported by faith - a shared identity - but it is becoming more obvious by the moment, string ain't theory. Even if; its predictions are of impassable branes and voids that serve no purpose other than flesh out some equations.

It sounds to me like people are confusing multiverse theory with the theory of multiple universes. They are very different theories. Details on multiverse theory can be found in the paper I linked to in the first post.

Best regards

Pete