But we could also have a more refined [calculation], like the number of parts it consists of, and so on. Though we've seen the bridge of evolution crumble at each point, the bridge of purposeful, intelligent design seems to be able to span the chasm-whether from nonlife to today's 1.7 million species, or from the very moment of the origin of the universe to our present planet, which is exactly equipped to be our home. That second condition is what separates a non-scientific argument from a scientific one. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Robert J. The probability, they calculate, that the fine tuning of our universe is simply random is down to 10 to the minus sixty a very small number. equilibrium, as though someone stacked it there and balanced it perfectly, long ago. Probability of fine tuning The creation of multiple universes requires fine-tuning. The question is, is there a general theory, a general way that we can look at fine tuning across all of these disciplines? I think your intuitions on this matter are basically correct, Ken.
London: Routledge, pp. We could apply that in cosmology. It would be unrealistic to expect the rock would remain perfectly balanced in the configuration where a heavy, massive object remained in a precariously balanced state. It might be true that the Universe could have been any way at all and that we live in one where things are the way they are (and not some other way), but that doesn't give us anything scientific to work with. Collins, Robin. The Big Bang, on its own, offers no explanation as to why the initial expansion rate at the moment of the Universe's birth balances the total energy density so perfectly, leaving no room for spatial curvature at all and a perfectly flat Universe. As Robert Marks, Ola Hssjer, and Daniel Daz discuss, some prominent atheists/agnostics have chosen to substitute advanced extraterrestrials for God. It turns out the fine tuning is something ubiquitous in our universe.
So when your teachers or classmates pull the multiverse out of the bag, just ask them, Isnt the multiverse itself describable by specific physical laws?
If you picked two random billionaires off of the Forbes billionaires list, you'd expect the difference between their net worths would be at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars; finding that the two values were almost identical would be quite a surprise. Shortly before the cosmological constant was discovered, astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss noted that its addition to the big-bang model "would involve the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics." When you subtract it from your number, whatever it is, here are some things that we expect.
We're going to take my number, once we reveal it, and we're going to subtract it from your number.
This leads, over time, to the large-scale structure in the Universe today, as well as the fluctuations in temperature observed in the CMB. That outcome either corresponds to a functioning protein or not. Fine-tuning?
Was the universe created for life forms to live in? Collins, Robin. 2022 Forbes Media LLC.
But every once in a while, nature surprises us. The key is to tease out novel and unique predictions that can be put to the experimental or observational test; without it, our attempts at theorizing will remain divorced from reality. It is like billions of dysfunctional cities Anyway, Hssjer has been working on a general theory for fine-tuning: This portion begins at 12:07 min. New York: Longman Press. New predictions like these are essential for demonstrating the validity of a proposed fine-tuning mechanism. Bernoulli is right and Keynes is Wrong. If we extrapolate this back to a very early time say, one nanosecond after the hot Big Bang we find that not only do these two sides have to balance, but they have to balance to an extraordinary precision.
The Universe is electrically neutral, with one electron to cancel out the charge of every proton in the Universe, and the nuclear forces are extremely short-range, failing to extend beyond the scale of an atomic nucleus. Perhaps the outcome truly is a coincidence, but that should only be a conclusion we reach if we cannot find any other scientific explanation. This is trickier, but a simple rule of thumb is to take the range to be as wide as we can see that such values are possible.
Ive heard for example, that if you make a bowl of alphabet soup and the letters arrange themselves and say, good morning, that is specified. Evidence for Fine-tuning. In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, Neil Manson, ed. In our observed Universe, a cosmic acceleration is caused by some type of dark energy, which is hitherto unexplained. Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design.
Our Universe appears perfectly spatially flat, with the initial total energy density and the initial expansion rate balancing one another to at least some 20+ significant digits.
How would we know? Should AI Be Granted Patents on the Designs It Helps Develop?
The odds of this occurring naturally, if we consider all the random possibilities we could have imagined, are astronomically small. A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms. However, too much could block out critical sun energy.
In the face of a grab bag of ideas like creation by ETs or countless universes (some run by cats), why does the idea of a Creator seem far out?
The cosmic space energy density.
In cosmology, that would be the process of generating a universe. inflation ends, they become density fluctuations. Whenever we encounter a finely-tuned physical situation, there are good reasons to seek a physically-motivated explanation for it. The target consists of all the outcomes that are specified, that have a sufficiently high value of this specificity function, above a certain level. However, it isn't merely a coincidence, but rather a consequence of the underlying geology and erosion processes that gave rise to the structure we see today. Only in those Universes where our existence is possible can we exist, and therefore it's not surprising that we exist in a Universe that has the properties that we observe. That mechanism would also make additional predictions that differ from, and are testable against, the predictions that arise from not having that mechanism present. If you were to place another large rock atop this spire, you would expect it would topple over and either fall or roll down one side, coming to rest down in the valley below. The frequentist approach assesses the probability of future events but the Bayesian approach assesses the probability of events that have already occurred.
You may opt-out by. Critics of Bernoulli dont appreciate the definition of knowing nothing. The concept of knowing nothing can be tricky. There may be values that a constant could have which lie outside our ken, but so long as the range that we can see is large in comparison to the life-permitting range, then that constants having the value it does is improbable. A more meaningful thing to do is to ask, what is the probability of anything, which is meaningful coming up and floating in your soup. On the other hand, we have the sum total of all the forms of matter and energy that existed at that early time as well, including: Einstein's General theory of Relativity gives us an intricate relationship between the expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of energy in it.
Marks: Ola, you came up with a general theory. This could be the algorithm on generating the universe. It seems this should be more obvious otherwise. When we do encounter this unexpected kind of balance, we call it a system in unstable equilibrium. In the case of finding a boulder precariously balanced atop a spire, the geological erosion of layered stone where the different layers of sedimentary rock have different densities and susceptibilities to the elements could be responsible.
The Planets (And Pluto) Wont Change Orbits And Cause Havoc For At Least 100,000 Years, Say Scientists, Circle August 29 In Your Calendar.
There's a better-than-average chance that the difference will yield a negative number, but around a 1-in-3 chance we get a positive number. Ola Hssjer: We introduced this idea in my joint paper with Steinar Thorvaldsen originally. Hume, Fine-Tuning and the Who Designed God? Objection, in In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment, James Sennett and Douglas Groothius, eds., pp.
That is, if you think of an outcome being generated randomly by chance, you have a certain distribution on it.
the same order of magnitude as the original numbers in question. How? On the other hand, if some pre-existing phase of the Universe created these initial conditions while also making additional predictions, we'd have something of enormous scientific importance. If we come back to the expanding Universe, that's the situation we find ourselves in: the Universe appears to be enormously fine-tuned. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, only gravitation matters. 175-199. If the Universe had just a slightly higher matter density (red), it would be closed and have [+] recollapsed already; if it had just a slightly lower density (and negative curvature), it would have expanded much faster and become much larger. you were to find another large rock balanced atop this one, that would be an example of unstable equilibrium, a phenomenon that you wouldn't expect to find naturally.
We can assess the range of life-permitting values by holding the laws of nature constant while altering the value of the constant which plays a role in that law.
That will give us an idea of the range of strength of the gravitational force that is compatible with physical life forms. Inflation would stretch the Universe flat, yielding an energy density that matched the expansion rate, and then when inflation ended, the Big Bang's initial conditions would be set up. It sounds like youve done that, by looking at all of the possible solutions that are specified.
On this page, a series of 5-digit random numbers (numbers between 1 and 100,000) are shown. The larger the value R, the less likely it is that A will become four. This rock formation, known as Balanced Rock in Arches National Park, appears to be in unstable [+] equilibrium, as though someone stacked it there and balanced it perfectly, long ago.
There; I've got mine and you've got yours. Collins, Robin. First, we need to have a target. The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits. All of these Universes are governed by the Friedmann equations, which relate the expansion of the Universe to the various types of matter and energy present within it. With robust predictions about the spectrum, entropy, temperature, and other properties concerning the density fluctuations that arise in inflationary scenarios, and the verification found in the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Universe's large-scale structure, we even have a viable solution. The Big Bang, on its own, offers no explanation as to why the initial expansion rate at the moment of the Universe's birth balances the total energy density so perfectly, leaving no room for spatial curvature at all and a perfectly flat Universe.
London: Routledge, pp. We could apply that in cosmology. It would be unrealistic to expect the rock would remain perfectly balanced in the configuration where a heavy, massive object remained in a precariously balanced state. It might be true that the Universe could have been any way at all and that we live in one where things are the way they are (and not some other way), but that doesn't give us anything scientific to work with. Collins, Robin. The Big Bang, on its own, offers no explanation as to why the initial expansion rate at the moment of the Universe's birth balances the total energy density so perfectly, leaving no room for spatial curvature at all and a perfectly flat Universe. As Robert Marks, Ola Hssjer, and Daniel Daz discuss, some prominent atheists/agnostics have chosen to substitute advanced extraterrestrials for God. It turns out the fine tuning is something ubiquitous in our universe.
So when your teachers or classmates pull the multiverse out of the bag, just ask them, Isnt the multiverse itself describable by specific physical laws?
If you picked two random billionaires off of the Forbes billionaires list, you'd expect the difference between their net worths would be at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars; finding that the two values were almost identical would be quite a surprise. Shortly before the cosmological constant was discovered, astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss noted that its addition to the big-bang model "would involve the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics." When you subtract it from your number, whatever it is, here are some things that we expect.
We're going to take my number, once we reveal it, and we're going to subtract it from your number.
This leads, over time, to the large-scale structure in the Universe today, as well as the fluctuations in temperature observed in the CMB. That outcome either corresponds to a functioning protein or not. Fine-tuning?
Was the universe created for life forms to live in? Collins, Robin. 2022 Forbes Media LLC.
But every once in a while, nature surprises us. The key is to tease out novel and unique predictions that can be put to the experimental or observational test; without it, our attempts at theorizing will remain divorced from reality. It is like billions of dysfunctional cities Anyway, Hssjer has been working on a general theory for fine-tuning: This portion begins at 12:07 min. New York: Longman Press. New predictions like these are essential for demonstrating the validity of a proposed fine-tuning mechanism. Bernoulli is right and Keynes is Wrong. If we extrapolate this back to a very early time say, one nanosecond after the hot Big Bang we find that not only do these two sides have to balance, but they have to balance to an extraordinary precision.
The Universe is electrically neutral, with one electron to cancel out the charge of every proton in the Universe, and the nuclear forces are extremely short-range, failing to extend beyond the scale of an atomic nucleus. Perhaps the outcome truly is a coincidence, but that should only be a conclusion we reach if we cannot find any other scientific explanation. This is trickier, but a simple rule of thumb is to take the range to be as wide as we can see that such values are possible.
Ive heard for example, that if you make a bowl of alphabet soup and the letters arrange themselves and say, good morning, that is specified. Evidence for Fine-tuning. In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, Neil Manson, ed. In our observed Universe, a cosmic acceleration is caused by some type of dark energy, which is hitherto unexplained. Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design.
Our Universe appears perfectly spatially flat, with the initial total energy density and the initial expansion rate balancing one another to at least some 20+ significant digits.
How would we know? Should AI Be Granted Patents on the Designs It Helps Develop?
The odds of this occurring naturally, if we consider all the random possibilities we could have imagined, are astronomically small. A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms. However, too much could block out critical sun energy.
In the face of a grab bag of ideas like creation by ETs or countless universes (some run by cats), why does the idea of a Creator seem far out?
The cosmic space energy density.
In cosmology, that would be the process of generating a universe. inflation ends, they become density fluctuations. Whenever we encounter a finely-tuned physical situation, there are good reasons to seek a physically-motivated explanation for it. The target consists of all the outcomes that are specified, that have a sufficiently high value of this specificity function, above a certain level. However, it isn't merely a coincidence, but rather a consequence of the underlying geology and erosion processes that gave rise to the structure we see today. Only in those Universes where our existence is possible can we exist, and therefore it's not surprising that we exist in a Universe that has the properties that we observe. That mechanism would also make additional predictions that differ from, and are testable against, the predictions that arise from not having that mechanism present. If you were to place another large rock atop this spire, you would expect it would topple over and either fall or roll down one side, coming to rest down in the valley below. The frequentist approach assesses the probability of future events but the Bayesian approach assesses the probability of events that have already occurred.
You may opt-out by. Critics of Bernoulli dont appreciate the definition of knowing nothing. The concept of knowing nothing can be tricky. There may be values that a constant could have which lie outside our ken, but so long as the range that we can see is large in comparison to the life-permitting range, then that constants having the value it does is improbable. A more meaningful thing to do is to ask, what is the probability of anything, which is meaningful coming up and floating in your soup. On the other hand, we have the sum total of all the forms of matter and energy that existed at that early time as well, including: Einstein's General theory of Relativity gives us an intricate relationship between the expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of energy in it.
Marks: Ola, you came up with a general theory. This could be the algorithm on generating the universe. It seems this should be more obvious otherwise. When we do encounter this unexpected kind of balance, we call it a system in unstable equilibrium. In the case of finding a boulder precariously balanced atop a spire, the geological erosion of layered stone where the different layers of sedimentary rock have different densities and susceptibilities to the elements could be responsible.
The Planets (And Pluto) Wont Change Orbits And Cause Havoc For At Least 100,000 Years, Say Scientists, Circle August 29 In Your Calendar.
There's a better-than-average chance that the difference will yield a negative number, but around a 1-in-3 chance we get a positive number. Ola Hssjer: We introduced this idea in my joint paper with Steinar Thorvaldsen originally. Hume, Fine-Tuning and the Who Designed God? Objection, in In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment, James Sennett and Douglas Groothius, eds., pp.
That is, if you think of an outcome being generated randomly by chance, you have a certain distribution on it.
the same order of magnitude as the original numbers in question. How? On the other hand, if some pre-existing phase of the Universe created these initial conditions while also making additional predictions, we'd have something of enormous scientific importance. If we come back to the expanding Universe, that's the situation we find ourselves in: the Universe appears to be enormously fine-tuned. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, only gravitation matters. 175-199. If the Universe had just a slightly higher matter density (red), it would be closed and have [+] recollapsed already; if it had just a slightly lower density (and negative curvature), it would have expanded much faster and become much larger. you were to find another large rock balanced atop this one, that would be an example of unstable equilibrium, a phenomenon that you wouldn't expect to find naturally.
We can assess the range of life-permitting values by holding the laws of nature constant while altering the value of the constant which plays a role in that law.
That will give us an idea of the range of strength of the gravitational force that is compatible with physical life forms. Inflation would stretch the Universe flat, yielding an energy density that matched the expansion rate, and then when inflation ended, the Big Bang's initial conditions would be set up. It sounds like youve done that, by looking at all of the possible solutions that are specified.
On this page, a series of 5-digit random numbers (numbers between 1 and 100,000) are shown. The larger the value R, the less likely it is that A will become four. This rock formation, known as Balanced Rock in Arches National Park, appears to be in unstable [+] equilibrium, as though someone stacked it there and balanced it perfectly, long ago.
There; I've got mine and you've got yours. Collins, Robin. First, we need to have a target. The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits. All of these Universes are governed by the Friedmann equations, which relate the expansion of the Universe to the various types of matter and energy present within it. With robust predictions about the spectrum, entropy, temperature, and other properties concerning the density fluctuations that arise in inflationary scenarios, and the verification found in the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Universe's large-scale structure, we even have a viable solution. The Big Bang, on its own, offers no explanation as to why the initial expansion rate at the moment of the Universe's birth balances the total energy density so perfectly, leaving no room for spatial curvature at all and a perfectly flat Universe.