Slashdot Mirror
Cosmological Constant Not Fine Tuned For Life
eldavojohn writes "A common argument one might encounter in intelligent design or the arduous process of resolving science with religion is that the physical constants of our world are fine tuned for life by some creator or designer. A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims quite the opposite when it comes to the cosmological constant. His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.'"
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
I find this somewhat comforting. The Earth is becoming less and less 'special' with new worlds being found nearly every day now--worlds that may sustain life. Now it turns out that the universe is 'flawed' from our perspective, too. In a way, it's sort of optimistic--there's a way that it could be better, and the possibility arises that maybe it'd be possible to find a 'better' place.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
wow. You can't disprove intelligent design, people have faith in it which is not scientific nor something that can be reasoned with.
This should not be on slashdot. Some people might think that disproving lunacy is actually news.
Just look at any government. Intelligent design surely would not allow for such insanity.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
With his own constant? Huh, huh?! Who does he think he is? God?
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
We don't need to resolve science with religion ... we need to reconcile religion with science. Once your god is outside the big bang where scientists just shrug, or addressing things like an afterlife ... run wild.
If your religion can't incorporate what science tells us, you're choosing to live in ignorance and take your holy book as literal, factual information.
I know astrophysicists who are devoutly religious ... first and foremost, they turn to the science to explain the universe as it exists. For them, god answers a completely different set of questions -- and I have no problem with that. If any entity DID create the universe, it's largely going to be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
If a god exists, he's such a massively abstract and complex being, that trying to fit him/it/whatever into OUR understanding of the universe is laughable.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The author of the linked study appears not to have considered that a universe more dense with galaxies would be a universe with many more planet-sterilizing gamma ray bursts, which would not be terribly conducive to life.
If life is less likely in this universe, doesn't the fact that it exists help the creationist argument? In essence any life becomes more special not less.
Here at /. News, our top story is "An uncaring universe does not care about humanity". News at 11.
Following this we will have more videos of cats being catlike.
Not speaking about the merits of Intelligent Design or any other theory of your choice... but Intelligent Design talks about the constant as if it were a constant to help maintain life on this planet, not about life evolving on any planet out there in any galaxy out there. Your assertion is incorrect.
This doesn't refute Intelligent Design, it just suggests that the Designer isn't as Intelligent as He's cracked up to be.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I thought the existence of Charlie Sheen proved long ago that the whole thing is just a crap shoot.
So really life is just fined tuned for the cosmological constant?
...you can't argue with success.
Known attempts at permutations of physical constants: 1
Success at creating intelligent life: 1
Of course, one could never argue against the line of reasoning suggested by the summary--whatever degree of life exists, arbitrarily declare there should be "more", and conjecture (yes, it's sheer conjecture--the actual results from modifying the cosmological constant would require far more calculation of than is provided) something else would have made it "better".
Personally, though I'm used to having my code second-guessed, they'd have to come up with a much better criticism than this...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Basically, he said the current value of the cosmological constant does not maximise the potential for life.
Assuming that an omnipotent would seek to create as much life as possible, then the Omnipotent did not set that value. That shows us one of two things:
1) The omnipotent does not exist
2) The omnipotent did not want to maximize the chances of life, but instead did what he/she/it wanted to: which is pretty much the definition of an omnipotent.
So either this omnipotent does not exist, or it is omnipotent. Yeah...
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
And Earth is on the inner edge of the habitable zone, instead of the middle. If they can reconcile that with the fine-tuning theory, they can reconcile this news.
This is biased toward non intelligent design right off the bat. A creator would only need to optimize for life the planet or planets that he intended to deposit life upon. The fact that the universe at large is biased against life makes life here on earth all that more special.
"Creating more Galaxies" is not necessarily synonymous with "Creating more galaxies that can sustain life". If increasing the cosmological constant increases the percentage of matter that forms galaxies, but also changes the makeup of those galaxies to be inhospitable to life, then there would be an overall decrease in the universes 'suitability for life'.
Given that there is no (currently known) method of testing how a change in the cosmological constant would affect other properties of matter and energy, it would be foolish to simply assume that all else would remain the same.
Please tell me I'm missing something big, and not that Cornell university published a paper with that fundamental of a flaw.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Clearly, He just doesn't want us to be overcrowded. Well, at least galaxy-wise. (In other words, the only way to win is to not play, as there's always a non-explanation explanation.)
and they asked "Why do you want to study the stars?"
Science. Religion. They are not a competition. Religion answers questions for us that Science cannot. Science answers questions for us that Religion doesn't address. Many famous scientists from bygone ages were devout believers in God, or Allah, or (insert other deity here), and yet made great strides to science. They didn't see the two as mutually exclusive. I blame arrogance and intellectual hubris for thinking that you can live without one or the other. Learn to accept both, and you will be a much happier person.
Bearded Dragon
oh, yes, the 'frist psot', also not fine tuned for life. Well, not fine tuned for intelligent life.
You can't handle the truth.
If it proves a creator, it proves he's an arsehole.
If those pushing theistic support in science by saying "since it's not tuned for us, it MUST be a miracle!" have lost the argument, since the only point of arguing that is to make someone else feel that there IS a god and therefore convert. Except that this now devolves from a somewhat persuasive, if shallow "how come it's all so tuned for life?" to the much less persuasive "It's not tuned for us, so it must be impossible, eh?".
Just because there's life in the desert doesn't mean that life there is "more alive" than when it's in the tropical jungle, so why does life existing in a sub-optimal universe become "more special"? Just because a negative constant would be better doesn't mean that a positive one makes life otherwise impossible.
I'm afraid the OP is *really* reaching.
His point would be relevant if the constant were such as to make life impossible.
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
From the paper I linked in the summary:
Perhaps a more common view among physicists today is the idea that there is a multiverse with a wide range of values for the constants of physics, and by the selection principle of observership (the weak anthropic principle), we find ourselves in the part of the multiverse where life is possible and/or relatively common (at least compared to other parts of the multiverse) [7]. However, there is still considerable controversy over whether such a multiverse that would be necessary for this explanation really exists.
And then later the author says (calling this the 'third view'):
The third view, of observer selection within a multiverse, is hard to prove or disprove directly, since it appears very difficult to obtain direct information about other possible parts of a multiverse. However, if a simple theory were developed that gives good statistical explanations for what we do observe and that also predicts a multiverse that we cannot directly observe, such a theory could become highly convincing (analogous to the prediction by general relativity of very high curvature in black-hole interior regions that cannot be directly observed).
I believe the intent of this paper was to directly address the claims instead of using the weak anthropic principle. More importantly, his argument is falsifiable (that coveted trait in the scientific process) whereby the other three views are not at this time. As other posters have pointed out we can now attempt to reason out this theory further.
My work here is dung.
When they try to tackle the deep philosophical questions, they sound every bit as ridiculous as the creationists do trying to "correct" science.
Stephen Hawking, I'm looking at you.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Before this disintegrates into the inevitable slew of religion bashing...
From TFA:
laws of physics contain various constants that have very specific, mysterious values that nobody can explain
Maybe its because mathematics is (often) an approximation. You can hide oodles of complexity with a constant, especially in a system that is not understood i.e. the universe.
One explanation is that this is pure accident and that there is no deeper reason for the coincidence. Another idea is that there is some deeper law of nature, which we have yet to discover, that sets the constants as they are. Yet another is that the constants can take more or less any value in an infinite multitude of universes. In ours, they are just right, which is why we have been able to evolve to observe them.
Wow that's convincing. So basically, constants are either random, hiding complexity, or rooted in some string theory nonsense about infinite parallel universes. Oh yea, or they are created and tuned by God/gods/FSM, which is what this "evidence" claims to refute.
the constants have been fine-tuned by some unseen omnipotent being who has set them up in a way that maximises the amount of life that form
The constant expressing the universe's rate of expansion is positive, however:
Page says that a slightly negative value of the constant would maximize this process.
And this is it. Some dude ran some simulations on a computer, simulations of a poorly understood system. And from this, we can conclude that our universe is not designed for life to exist. And yet here we are.
Theoretical physics is planted mid-way between science and pseudoscience. The field seems to be in its infancy, much like chemistry was in the early 1700s. This experiment isn't much different than the one that proved the existence of "phlogiston". Much of the evidence is "proven" without an understanding of the underlying principles, just on the basis of logical jumps and conclusions.
I was taught that the orbit of Venus marked the inner edge of the habitable zone. When did she get kicked to curb?
Seriously, all this means is that some atheists make equally ridiculous claims as some believers. Given how little we truly understand about the universe, I think it's a little premature to say that the cosmological constant is/isn't tuned to produce life. While it's observed value may result in fewer galaxies forming, it likely also means fewer galaxies colliding and annihilating all life caught in the collision. I don't think that the cosmological constant in and of itself has any implication in the argument for whether or not God exists, and I have no idea why people on both sides try to make every scientific issue connect back to that. Take a philosophy class, there is no definitive proof or disproof, believe what you choose to believe and let everyone else to make their own choice.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/eons-of-darwinian-evolution-somehow-produce-mitch,17635/
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
he probably wouldn't have designed our knee the way it is either - or the octopus or the elephant or.... (etc etc) - but the crazy thing is --- it works!
The cosmological constant can be considered 'fine-tuned' if vacuum energy differs by region of space (domain). Granted, this is just one of many theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#Cosmological_constant_problem
Personally, I think people are trying too hard to either disprove religion or disprove science. I believe that if people were to quit trying to shout down the opposing view and simply concentrate on their respective discipline, the truth would become self-evident without the need for 'smack-talking' on either side, so long as people were even the slightest bit open to 'alternative opinions'.
benevolent creator, as opposed to any creator at all. A creator could still have designed a universe that was not optimal for the chances of life, as signified by that positive constant.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
You forgot Ignorance, unless you include that in Biological Bias.
All scientific statements that pretend to proclaim the "truth" should be prefixed by "Based on what we now know".
Because:
a) We don't know everything and sure as hell don't fully understand even that which we "know".
b) We will know more and/or different in the future.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Lord IS a rotten bastard!
Now he just needs massive funding to run the experiment.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Interesting, isn't it?
I've argued that the universe is, and should be poorly tuned for life. Think of it this way, if there is a range of possible values of the fundamental constants we can assume that there is a single point in a n-dimensional space (where n is the number of fundamental constants) which is the "best possible values for life". Surrounding it is a volume of possible values where life is possible. Most of that volume is closer to the edge at which life becomes impossible than it is to the center. The larger the number of fundamental constants the worse it becomes. 3/4 of the area of a circular disk (a 2-sphere) is closer to the edge than to the center. 7/8 of the volume of a sphere (a 3-sphere) is closer to the edge than the center. 15/16th of a 4-sphere, and so on.
So it really comes down to how many truly fundamental constants there are. 6? In which case the chance would be 63/64 that we are in a poorly tuned universe.
Support SETI@home
Or the non-existence of anything else for that matter. You can't even prove the non-existance of God in this post. It's a logical fallacy to jump from "we can't find any evidence of God" to "We've proven God doesn't exist".
Intelligent Design is pseudo science, an attempt to use science, logic, and reason to suggest the existence of God. It's just religion repackaged to look like science. It still requires a leap of faith to get from "we can't explain this" to "an intelligent creator (God) must exist", which is the fundamental argument of Intelligent Design.
Testability is the realm of science, faith is the realm of religion. Neither can disprove the other. Although science can prove/disprove specific doctrines of religions, it can never disprove the the existence of God, nor the faith therein.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
I almost feel silly saying something so obvious, but here goes.
How do you know a negative constant would lead to any life at all? It seems like things would be so radically different that none of the assumptions and observations you can make in our universe would still apply. This discussion is not serious, it is pure foolishness, just like children sitting around playing make believe. Not that that can't be productive and useful, but at least call it what it is.
"Agnosticism" is a statement of epistemology. It merely states that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. "Theism" and "atheism" are declarations of belief. The express an acceptance of an ontology.
You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. While the epistemological question of our knowledge of God may be inaccessible, it is difficult to remain completely neutral with respect to personal belief.
Do you think God exists? You are a theist. Do you think God most likely does not exist? You are an atheist. As it turns out, most atheists are agnostic, and are more than willing to admit there is a certain probability that some form of god exists. That probability is simply vanishingly small.
Atheism is not as un-scientific as being religious. In fact, as the lack of god is the null hypothesis, atheism is the default scientific proposition. Until there is a testable, positive hypothesis concerning the existence of god, theism is entirely in the realm of wish-fulfilling fantasy and philosophical self-gratification.
Agnosticism, meanwhile, is not a "third option." As you use it, as a state of superposition between theism and atheism, it isn't even coherent.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You've assumed it's random, which is not necessarily true.
His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
So, then, it would take even finer turning right? If it is true that there is design behind creation, why assume that the intelligence behind it would require maximized potential rather than mere potential?
This is the part I don't understand. If there is no evidence either way, why does atheism win by default?
Isn't this like saying we should abandon string theory because it doesn't explain anything better than the standard model?
Because that's what a null hypothesis means.
We don't need god to explain any of our science, so it's a needless term to the equation, and therefore you presume it to be irrelevant.
Nothing in science requires (or benefits) from including god, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion in purely scientific terms. So, trying to account for it gives you no net benefit.
If the scientific data suggested that we can't have even a rudimentary explanation of the world without god, the null hypothesis would be invalidated, and we would have discarded it by now.
Which is why science, at this point in time, takes the non-existence of god as a starting point -- because there is no evidence whatsoever that we need to account for it in scientific disciplines.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It is not if we or the Xenomorphs are fine-tuned for this Universe or if the Universe is fine-tuned for us.
It's about there being a calculable possibility that ANOTHER UNIVERSE EXISTS WHICH IS OPTIMAL FOR LIFE - compared to which our Universe is a third-world kind of Universe.
You know, like the song says - this ain't the garden of Eden, there ain't no angels above.
But my favorite part is not that this proves that there is no god. Cause it doesn't. Not really.
It just proves that our universe is not a product of very intelligent design, and we are here most likely by accident.
It is that it proves that WE are not his favorite creatures, made in his image and all that.
Somewhere else, there is a Universe which is perfect for life.
And if there IS a god - his/her favorite creatures live there. And guess what - it's not us.
Also, what would you do when your aquarium becomes too small for your fishes - and there is this other empty aquarium right next to it but it is kinda moldy and there is maybe a spider living somewhere in the corner?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
and they asked "Why do you want to study the stars?"
Well, maybe they thought only movie/TV stars used cosmetics. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
My view is that creation is the only solid proof of a creator we have, and that creation is the best thing we have to infer things about the creator from.
As Einstein once put it:The Grand Unified Theory would be the greatest accomplishment of mankind, for with it we could see the mind of God (Or something like that).
With science we can devise methods to understand creation, and thus the creator.
This universe is not the best possible one for life.
Ergo, it was not created with life in mind, nor "intelligently", nor "by an omnipotent being".
Ergo, this is an accidental universe and we are here by accident. At best.
At worst... Well... There is a god, but he is not omnipotent. More like incompetent.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Follow me here...
Constants aren't.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Why are we thinking in terms of how fine-tuned the universe is to us? We, and any other form of life, are "fine-tuned" (or getting there) to the universe. Slightly different constants would simply present different needs for life to sustain itself, given the differences were within a margin where life is possible at all.
A form of life that can deal with the conditions present is what presents itself. Just because we happen to be in that category doesn't make us any more special; that's the only life that would exist.
Thanks for the hint!
I'll fix it for Universe 2.0.
The whole fine tuning argument is idiotic, no matter how you slice it. First of all, it is a false dichotomy, as if the only possibilities were a universe fine tuned by a creator, or a universe like the one we have, but with various cosmological constants. Well, I'm sorry, but no. The universe could have been any cellular automaton like the game of Life. Any simulation of a made up universe you run on a computer could have been the real thing. Of course, evidence rules them out, but evidence also rules out all values for cosmological constants other than those we have, so what's the point? If "fine tuning" is a problem, then "tuning" the universe so that it works like the one we have ought to be an even bigger problem, no? Like, you could imagine some elegant, compact model for a universe, with no apparent parameters to fine tune, that produces life with probability one. Why didn't we get that? Better yet, you could imagine a universe where "souls" really do exist: think Minecraft with AI blocks (now, it wouldn't be "artificial" anymore if the universe really did work like this!). Such a block would be a black box, mysterious, impossible to investigate from within the universe (other than reverse engineering, but that would be hard as all hell) - a fantastic, foolproof design!
Second, the fine tuning argument can be easily turned against a creator. A creator can be variously intelligent, thereby limiting their ability to fine tune the universe properly. It can be variously powerful, limiting their ability to implement their design. They can be variously motivated, they can have limited attention span, their morality can be variable, they can be lazy, they can hate life, and so on. So even in order to create us, a designer ought to have been fine tuned.
The bottom line is this: the fine tuning argument essentially asserts that P(Life|Designer) = 1.0 and P(Life|No Designer) is very small, and then proceeds to conclude that P(Designer|Life) > 0.5. What's interesting is that under these (flawed) assumptions, such an argument CAN be valid, but only depending on your priors. If you believe that, in the absence of any evidence, the probability that a God exists is high enough, then it does follow from the fine tuning argument's suppositions that God likely does exist. It suffices that you believe that P(Designer) > P(Life|~Designer) (approximately). Now, if you believe that giving an a priori probability to God is nonsensical, then the fine tuning argument falls apart, because you need this probability if you want to get anywhere. Else, the most consistent way to give a priori probabilities to possible models for the universe is to scale it so that simple explanations are inherently more probable than complex explanations (and exponentially so, because each additional bit doubles the number of models). This is a sort of Bayesian Occam's razor. And then the argument still fails, and majorly so.
Given how much the "standard model" has missed about the true reality of the Universe we believe in, I find it incredible these people want you to think a single number defines the universe.
The audacity.
So far as I can tell, the standard model is basically Sh*t.
Unless of course you want to build the following:
1) Nuclear Weapons
2) Pretty little rocket ships.
3) Shiney things to buy. iPhones, iPads...and more iSh*t.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
And Slashdot is a religion? Let's see...
Check. Well, friend is a stretch. Benevolent leader?
Check.
Crap! Do we have to tithe too?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
In particular, your assertion of why you posted this obscures the important questions of how that why came about.
Extraordinary claims ...
The default assumption is that there are physical, real "hows" that result in your perception of a "why". The assumption of any metaphysical influence (a magic "why") requires much more evidence (at least SOME) to be considered.
Captcha: sidestep
MetaCaptcha: irony
The people this is intended to convince have excellent experience in selectively choosing what to listen to.
"The cosmological constant is fine-tuned for the development of life." - "Science proves that a Creator designed the universe!"
"The cosmological constant is not fine-tuned for the development of life." - "Liberal scientists second-guess the almighty Creator!"
...or a bit like abandoning the proposition of existence of Russell's teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
One that hath name thou can not otter
"In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
He seems to presume that life is biological. Who says a galaxy isn't alive? Who knows if rocks on the sands of a beach on some other planet aren't alive. Who knows, the universe itself might be a conscious entity.
Not necessarily. Life too crowded together may result in The Borg/Ceylon/Cortes Syndrome (depending on your fav sci-fi/history) where the dominant form of life in an area gobbles up everything within its reach.
Thin matter may explain the Fermi Paradox.
Table-ized A.I.
This is the part I don't understand. If there is no evidence either way, why does atheism win by default?
Isn't this like saying we should abandon string theory because it doesn't explain anything better than the standard model?
Atheism wins because it is the existential claim that requires proof, not its negation.
If you claim that something exists, you have to show that it exists. The burden of proof is not on others to show that it does not exist.
You either have to demonstrate that something directly, or else prove that the negation (that it doesn't exist) leads to some kind of problem, making it impossible for that thing not to exist.
The human mind can invent all kinds of things that can't be proven not to exist.
Are you familiar with Russel's teapot? This is the whimsical proposition that there is a china teapot orbiting the Sun in an elliptical orbit. Can you prove that it is false? Yet should that proposition "win by default"?
Though we cannot prove it false, there are several strikes against Russel's teapot: 1) it's an obvious human fabrication and any number of such fabrications can be invented on the spot, with similar difficulties of proving their non-existence. For instance, a herd of pink elephants roaming Antarctica, etc. 2) Russel's teapot has never been observed and 3) The proposition that "Russel's teapot does not exist", if true, has no catastrophic consequences in our understanding of the world. We cannot show that Russel's teapot is necessary for anything. In fact, "Russel's teapot does not exist", if true, only has a devastating effect on the statement "Russel's teapot exists" and on nothing else!!!
1) Science deals only with the natural world. Science can't prove there is or isn't anything beyond the natural world 2) Metaphysical truths such as "The external world is real" vs. "we're all just a consciousness in a vacuum" 3) Ethics "Theft is wrong" 4) Aesthetics 5) The unproven assumptions of science itself: eg. assertion of constancy of speed of light in a vacuum... you have to assume it to espouse the theory 6) Mathematical postulates and axioms 7) Your implication that "Only scientifically proven answers are worthwhile" can't even be proven scientifically...
Things that used to be explained by Religion which are now better explained by science:
Things that used to be explained by Science but are now usually explained by Relgion:
Thank you
Somebody's just jealous...
it's a trick question. "Why" assumes an anthropomorphic imperative. It's a superset of "How", in that it tries to answer causal outcomes according to the mechanics of psychological intention. since not all outcomes are caused by the intervention of a conscious entity, "Why" questions can lead to dead ended answers.
You could solve your problem simply with correct English. You mean to ask: "How did the grass get to be green?", not "Why is the grass green?". By asking why you are fooling yourself by implying that grass is similar to a human being or some other anthropomorphically similar entity like an animal, which is capable of causal imperative. As humans we are biased to look for causes that stem from conscious activity of other humans, or animals. We want to know the reasons that other conscious entities do things, therefore we ask Why.
The best answer to why the grass is green is: because the grass wanted more energy. grass, being "conscious" of the light spectrum, has evolved into a suitable form for converting light to energy. the debate over whether grass is really conscious or not, or whether evolution represents a truly conscious imperative, is a fine one to have. However, by asking "Why" of grass, you are assuming that the debate is settled: grass is either 100% conscious, or the question is unanswerable. There is no divine mystery there, it is simply a poor question.
consider the question: Who is that telephone pole? The question is unanswerable, unless you happen to have anthropomorphized your telephone pole, say with a mustache and a nick name. If you think that the question "why is the grass green" is evidence that there is an all powerful deity, then my claim that a mustachioed telephone pole named "Rick" controls the universe is even more valid. Why? Because I suspect you would find it hard to seriously answer the question, "Who is that telephone pole?" Does that prove that the telephone pole that I call Rick is the master of the universe?
"Who" is more closely related to "why" than "how" in that it assumes an anthropomorphic entity. how answers a subset of why, in most cases, because they are closely related forms - both inquire as to what was the original sequence of events that led to such and such outcome. How wants the physical mechanics. Why wants to know the mechanics of intention, or the logic of motivation. You can answer "why" the grass is green" by describing how the grass got green mechanically, because why does want a causal explanation of origin. likewise you can answer "why" the moon exists by describing the impact that created it. But your answer will always come up unsatisfactory because what you really mean to ask is "how did the grass get to be green", or "how did the moon come to exist". "Why" naturally requires a causal, conscious entity to fully satisfy its requirements, and there is none for some outcomes.
Because there appears to be no conscious imperative behind most events in the universe, is that proof that there must be a conscious imperative there? the nonexistence of proof is usually not sited as evidence.
TFA does not actually put a stake through the heart of a fine-tuned universe.
In fact, it actually lends more support to the view that the universe is fine-tuned for one form of life: us.
The article's conclusion is based on the premise that a God would want to create lots of life, and so the constant should be more positive.
But the Biblical view is that humanity is unique (for various reasons). The value of the constant being negative would seem to support this.
From TFA:
Here's the thinking. The cosmological constant is a number that determines the energy density of the vacuum. It acts like a kind of pressure that, depending on its value, acts against gravity to push the universe apart or acts with gravity to pull the universe together towards a final Big Crunch.
Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive.
But although positive, the cosmological constant is tiny, some 122 orders of magnitude smaller than Planck's constant, which itself is a small number.
So Page and others have examined the effects of changing this constant. It's straightforward to show that if the the constant were any larger, matter would not form into galaxies and stars meaning that life could not form, at least not in the form we know it,.
So what value of the cosmological constant best encourages galaxy and star formation, and therefore the evolution of life? Page says that a slightly negative value of the constant would maximise this process. And since life is some small fraction of the amount of matter in galaxies, then this is the value that an omnipotent being would choose.
In fact, he says that any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
our proposition is wrong
until
we really get into 'wrong'
it's nearly impossible to prove anything 'outside'
but
when we are 'inside'
will we tell the truth?
XD
I know its crazy but I actually read TFA and the argument is this. The universe is not the most favorable place for life to EVOLVE so the argument that the universe was created and fine tuned for live to EVOLVE is false. I'm not quite getting how this counters the argument that the universe was created and fine tuned as a place for life to exist. If you don't believe in evolution does it really matter if the universe is a good place for life to evolve?
I expect that God had the deadline approaching, and instead of perfectly tuning the constant just pushed out something that was "good enough" planning to fix it with a live patch later (Universe Service Pack 1).
I can see the rebuttal now: "How can you say the universe is not fine-tuned for us? We're here, aren't we?"
If I were to put money on it I'd guess that eventually we will find that the Universe is not fine-tuned and that, although the initial parameters (possibly not the ones we have now) can vary they vary in such a way that a universe somewhat similar to ours is somewhat inevitable after the Big Bang.
The only thing *known* about dark matter is that we can't (easily ?) see it.
We know a lot more about it than that. For a start it cannot be made of atoms because not only does it not interact with light but nor does it interact via strong nuclear force interactions. However it is distributed through out galaxies, as a sphere, even when the visible galaxy is spiral, and it does not cause accretion disks so it cannot be trapped in Black Holes as you suggest.
However it does not have to consist of just one type of particle. It is entirely possible that there might be some structure to Dark Matter...just nothing like ordinary matter. Arkani-Hamed at Princeton has suggested some more complex models and we are looking for these possibilities at ATLAS on the LHC but until there is clear evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation for DM is a single, neutral, possibly weakly interacting, massive particle.
If life is the answer, what is the question? What is the nature of consciousness?
The null hypothesis is a product of philosophy of science. It matters only in scientific experiment, which is only a fairly small subset of philosophy. Even if God is not a useful concept in scientific reasoning, it nonetheless can be argued to have a place in other spheres of human reasoning such as ethics or metaphysics.
Maybe the cosmological constant is fine tuned for life not destroying itself. We humans have developed into organisms that are able consume every resources available to us, leaving destruction behind. As I understand the slight positive value is linked to the increasing expansion of the universe. Were it negative, the universe would collapse on itself. As the article also point out, there should be a sufficient time span for life to exist.
In the far future humans may be able to make interstellar travel. The amount of energy required is enormous, in planet or even star sized quantities. So if we are able to harvest this energy, matter will be a non-renewable resource that we can consume and eventually destroy our galaxy. If other galaxies were within reach of our spaceships, we could simply move to another one. (This is basically the same idea that we can move to Mars when we have destroyed Earth.)
Hence, maybe the cosmological constant is exactly the right value for life to exist, but leave galaxies out of reach of each other so life can only destroy one galaxy, containing destruction to very small areas of the universe. Assuming life in a large fraction of galaxies, some of this life would be smart enough or to little advanced to destroy their own galaxy, making sure life exist throughout the lifespan of the universe.
1) The natural world IS everything. Therefore there's nothing beyond and therefore nothing unknowable because it is all the natural world
2) if we're all just in a vacuum, then that external world is real. If it isn't, then the real world is the real external world.
3) Theft is wrong, see the constitution regarding liberty, justice and so on. If you steal my dinner, I starve.
4) Since not everyone has the same aesthetic feeling, there's no one answer, but the answer is available for each person.
5) If you assume it isn't, the universe doesn't work and becomes Wonderland.
6) Not science, and anyway 1+1=2 has been proven.
7) if everything we can do is in the "natural world" then nothing outside it can affect us, therefore what worth is there in something that cannot be seen, felt, smelt or affect us in any imaginable form, and, moreover, cannot see the natural world (since that would require the natural world leak out).
Now, please answer those questions with theism.
1) "God" is outside the natural world. Circular argument. Prove it.
2) God made the real world as he said. Except bats aren't birds...
3) Theft is right, if you're stealing the life from unbelievers, the goods, lands, women and wealth of the people who currently occupy "the promised land". So can't prove it's wrong.
4) Bible has nothing about aesthetics
5) The unproven assumption that god exists, is outside the natural world and undetectable within it, yet still manages to have an effect...
6) No maths in the bible.
7) Your implication that there's something outside the Natural World.
Please prove religion says why or is required to care about why.
In what way does religion tell us why the sky is blue?
Which, oddly enough, aren't science and try to cover the same sphere as religion largely does -- though, often by focusing on being secular.
In this case, the poster was asking why the scientific default is atheism -- because god doesn't bring any additional information when you're trying to explain the physical world. So it doesn't get factored in.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
your surface mind isn't as fundamental as your unconscious mind:
if you've ever seen someone fight for their life against alcohol & be losing, you've seen conflict between the 2 kinds of mind.
( think sand+soil vs *bedrock*: one temporary, one slow to change )
Souls are one quantum level fundamentaller than unconscious mind.
( think core of planet, over which bedrock floats, melts, & is recycled/formed-anew )
For your unconscious mind to learn anything,
that something's got to pound into it through experience that surface mind finds to be
hellaciously mind-ripping.
For a SOUL to learn anything,
it takes experience that UNCONSCIOUS mind finds to be
hellaciously mind-ripping.
Your paradigm doesn't consider the permanence/stuckness/immoveableness of the different levels of mind
( surface mind exists only for "today", hence yesterday seems less "real", since it wasn't in THIS instance of surface mind,
and unconscious mind exists only for this life, therefore what it can know/remember is limited to this life,
but souls, if reached through extravagance of yoga training, can remember experiences & understandings gained in ITS life,
not just one's present life/day ),
and also is based on the assumption that Universe recycles ONLY matter, not mind-energy as well!
( "reincarnation" being the ultimate recycling/processing, FORCING realization in all souls still contained within the "dream"/universe ).
That processing guarantees that ALL souls, or bits-of-god, realize, & return "home" to union-with-god.
All.
Inescapably.
If souls choose paths of abuse & drunken damage, through multiple lives, it's THEIR path, and doesn't destroy the souls.
( the unconscious-minds and the surface-minds get ripped apart, but they are only temporary apparitions ON souls ).
Souls CHOOSE, sometimes through their own ignorance, their own way:
EVERY one is responsible for our remaining path's direction + nature.
( the
~PapaGod *makes* us do this/that~
paradigm rejects self-determination/autonomy,
while insisting on victimness & martyrdom & prayer-induced exemption from responsibility )
Universe is *perfectly* efficient, unlimitedly effective, elegant beyond words,
& profound/vast/deep enough to be stunning,..
and if one pretends that there isn't any deeper level than one's current awareness,
it can't be understood OR accepted,
and Universe then looks only abusive/crazy/arbitrary!
Try reading 2 books by Elisabeth Haich:
"Initiation", her soul's reincarnation-cycle,
including spending about 10 000 years clawing its way back up to human life,
only to die a beggar on the streets
( before continuing its journey on the next rung of "Jacob's Ladder" as a person of sufficient means to be self-determining ),
and "Wisdom of the Tarot", which should have been named
~The Archetypes of Human Development,
AND why they are presented as shuffleable cards rather than a sequential scroll~,
for some brilliantly clear dead-accurate psychology of our mental ( within life ) evolution.
Work through, also,
"The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards, Ph.D,
to *experience* a mode of knowing that is wholely different from the
words-"knowing"/cognition our "education" shoved us into,
and when you can brain-walk
( alternate hemisphere-dominance at will, as opposed to stumping 'round in only 1 mode only... ),
you WILL understand how shallow surface mind limitation is, because you will be living DEEPER.
( training is quicker with charcoals & toothy paper
than with pencil/pen/line & hard/smooth copy/laser paper ).
Do the experiment, if you're honest enough & can learn: SEE, yourself!
Ha!