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
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.
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.
I thought the existence of Charlie Sheen proved long ago that the whole thing is just a crap shoot.
This was my thought, too... the conclusion that this somehow is an argument against a creator would only come if you assume certain ideas from the non-creator view. That is, that having a better chance of *developing* life is better, therefore having a creator create a cosmological constant that does not increase the evolutionary chance of life developing ...
Really, it sounds quite mixed up. The low chance of evolving life does not seem to be a good argument against having a creator.
...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?
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.
None of these arguments have any bearing on the subject, because in the end you are speculating on what said creator "would have done". Would constants be biased in favor of more favorable, or less favorable conditions? Noone knows, and those arguing against a creator will make the argument that the results of their studies disprove said creator.
At the end of the day, the statement on creation tends to be "things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way." Showing that X constant makes such an existence less or more likely doesnt in the least affect that statement.
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.
Actually, the definition os an omnipotent is that he can do anything he wants, not that he does. An omnipotent god who is too lazy to do anything at all would still be omnipotent.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
Some people might think that disproving lunacy is actually news.
Calling religion lunacy is like beating up an old dying grandma. Everyone knows she cannot hit back with any significant force. If you want to do something impressive, try showing that society would be better off without religion, or that people with conviction are less content overall. Now That would be like whipping the old grandma at a knitting or cookie-backing contest.
Why do you associate faith with lunacy?
Because if one person believes he has an invisible friend that dictates what he can and what he can't do and will punish him if he doesn't follow that invisible guy's arbitrary rules, he will be sent to a psychiatrist.
If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Intelligent Design is pseudo science, an attempt to use science, logic, and reason to suggest the existence of God.
How does intelligent design use science? I cites the results of other science (mostly to attack them), but as far as I've seen never "uses" science. Rather, intelligent design presupposes an answer then tries to attack scientific results they don't like without using the scientific method to demonstrate anything, but while misleadingly calling their assertions "science".
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.
The child kept talking about his invisible friend, saying that this friend gave him guidance and told him how to act. The parents of the child grew frustrated and embarrassed, and took the child to a doctor to get him cured.
The man kept talking about his invisible friend, saying that this friend gave him guidance and told him how to act. The man was elected as leader of the world's greatest superpower and given control of a nuclear arsenal.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Yes, but when the cops enforce the law and you get punished, you go to jail or you get a fine. It's tangible.
When you "do bad stuff" and don't listen to "God" (or whatever term you feel like using), there's no direct punishment. It all takes place after you die. You go to heaven or hell. Very conveniently, no one can confirm their existence, since you have to die to get in. It seems as if the people who invented this nonsense purposely made it so it couldn't be disproven by any living being. Good thing the dead can't talk.
They don't call it the opiate of the masses for nothing.
And to quote Ricky Gervais, "Thank God for making me an atheist."
What a gibbering heap of horseshit.
Of course you can make the argument that gravity and the like are testable and "real", but how realistic is that?
Pretty damn realistic, I think. You can test gravity. You can test nuclear physics. You can do that, even if you haven't. Or you can "rely on the experiences and reporting of others," of whom there are many. You can also combine these two methods and replicate the experiments of others.
Which is, you know, completely the opposite of religion in every way.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Perhaps you should look at the faith we all share in science as an explanation for everything.
Funny, last I checked, scientists themselves were saying that we do not have scientific explanation for everything and that more research is needed. Nobody believes there is a scientific explanation for everything, because frankly, there is not.
Faith is, as it turns out, completely irrational, based on no logic whatsoever, and usually just a matter of what makes people "feel good." I am not saying that there is anything specifically wrong with that -- people should be just as free to have faith make them feel good as they should be to have drugs make them feel good (of course, people are not free to do the latter, but you know, we are talking about the ideal and not the reality of our society's situation).
Palm trees and 8
The difference is that you can actually test everything you mention. You can walk off a cliff (I would not recommend it, but that "arbitrary" rule is not so arbitrary, you break it, you get an immediate negative response). You can touch that flame (and unless something is really wrong with the whole heat thing, you'll singe your fingers). You can walk out on the road and test Newton's laws. They can all be put to the test. You might not be able to actually produce a nuclear reaction, lacking the training and experience to create a controlled nuclear reaction (not to mention that it might not be a good idea to try it without proper training, from a safety point of view). But there have been numerous people who have documented and shown that it is possible, it can be filmed, the results can be verified, and most of all, they can be reproduced. You can test everything science claims to "know". They offer you information about the environment to create, they offer every information necessary to reproduce their results and actually, science expects and encourages you to test the results, because that is what a scientific proof is about: Repeatable, testable results.
God explicitly forbids that (Luke 4:12). You must not test god. Worse, it is simply assumed that we cannot reproduce those results, and we get no information whatsoever how it is achieved. Now what kind of "science" is that supposed to be? It smells a bit like Merlin working some magic for some king and expecting awe and wonder instead of understanding.
And sorry, either tell me how the trick works or get out of here and let me find out on my own. I don't give a crap about you or your god's lack of self esteem that you or him needs to draw it from me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.