Well, I'm still a Theist but I'm not a Christian Theist. I don't know about all the "anomalies" in living things but I'm sure God has sufficient reasons for allowing these "anomalies." What seem to be "bad designs" can actually serve a good purpose. Besides, the universe is extremely fine-tuned for life. Without these extremly fine-tuned parameters there would be no life. The evidence would then cancel itself out.
1. Strong nuclear force constant 2. Weak nuclear force constant 3. Gravitational force constant 4. Electromagnetic force constant 5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant 6. Ratio of proton to electron mass 7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons 8. Ratio of proton to electron charge 9. Expansion rate of the universe 10. Mass density of the universe 11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe 12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe 13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density 14. Entropy level of the universe 15. Velocity of light 16. Age of the universe 17. Uniformity of radiation 18. Homogeneity of the universe 19. Average distance between galaxies 20. Average distance between galaxy clusters 21. Average distance between stars 22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters 23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history 24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant 25. Gravitational fine-structure constant 26. Decay rate of protons 27. Ground state energy level for helium-4 Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2 28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio 29. Decay rate for beryllium-8 30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass 31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons 32. Polarity of the water molecule 33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions 34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions 35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions 36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions 37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions 38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions 39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries 40. Density of white dwarf binaries 41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter 42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe 43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe 44. Mass values for the active neutrinos 45. Number of different species of active neutrinos 46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe 47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino 48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe 49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles 50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation 51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor 52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty 53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae 54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures 55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities 56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history 57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles 58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles 59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts 60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form 61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) cease to form 62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars 63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars 64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies 65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3 66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects 67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density 68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density 69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric 70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry 71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes 72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history 73. Constancy of dark energy factors 74. Epoch for star formation peak 75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter 76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field 77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence 78. Level of charge-parity violation 79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe 80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation 81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe 82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production 83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe 84. Water’s temperature of maximum density 85. Water’s heat of fusion 86. Water’s heat of vaporization 87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe 88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe 89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe 90. Dioxygen’s kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules 91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen 92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe 93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors 94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars 95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field 96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions 97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies 98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between galaxy clusters 99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars 100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova eruptions of population III stars 101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second generation) stars 102. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that are processed by the first stars (population III stars) Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4 103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies 104. Constancy of the fine structure constants 105. Constancy of the velocity of light 106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space 107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio 108. Constancy of the gravitational constant 109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space 110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history 111. Mean temperature of exotic matter 112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps 113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime 114. Nature of cosmic defects 115. Number density of cosmic defects 116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the universe 117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the hypernova eruptions of population III stars 118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet 119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the first five billion years of cosmic history 120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day universe 121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space by dwarf galaxies
122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for dwarf galaxies 123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate 124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by dwarf galaxies during the first two billion years of cosmic history 125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by galactic superwinds during the first three billion years of cosmic history 126. Average size of cosmic voids 127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space 128. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that reside in the warm-hot intergalactic medium 129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit of dark matter halo virial mass) 130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population III stars (the universe’s first stars) 131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the number density dark matter halos in the present era universe 132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust 133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78 134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies 135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to baryons in the circumgalactic media 136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and exotic dark matter particles 137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the universe) 138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++ Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 5 139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters 140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic reionization
Probabilistically speaking, you shouldn't be here either without fine-tuning. You must have been intentionally formed by an agent.
The evidence of random sperm meeting random egg is too phenomenal:
1. Your Dad had to exist. 2. Your Mom had to exist. 3. They had to cross paths with each other at some point in their lives. 4. They had to say the right things to each other. 5. They had to have sex on the EXACT SPECIFIC point in time when they did, otherwise, the sperm would have been different. The body produces and reabsorbs sperm. 6. They probably had to be in the EXACT SPECIFIC position they were in for the EXACT SPECIFIC sperm to meet the egg--otherwise, no Cole. 7. Make up thousands more exact specific circumstances that must be met for Cole to exist. 8. Repeat for all generations prior to Mom and Dad.
Conclusion: It is probabilistically impossible for Cole to exist--yet here he is.
Either the conditions for Cole's existence were fine-tuned, or fine-tuning is probably just an illusion.
I don't take the fine-tuning of the universe to be an illusion. I believe the fine-tuning is real just as the universe is real. You can believe that way if you want to but I don't. There is also apparant evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support.
The environmental requirements for life to exist depend on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as for advanced life. A life form's activity level and longevity also make a significant difference. Given these variables, there are six distinct clusters of these environmental necessities, from the broadest to the narrowest: 1. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period 2. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period 3. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period 4. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period 5. for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period 6. for advanced life that survives for a long time period Complicating factors exist however. For example, unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophile life) is typically more susceptible to radiation damage and has a low molecular repair rate. Thus, the origin of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers,“Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9). The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist.
1. galaxy cluster type if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time 2. galaxy size if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions. if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time. 3. galaxy type if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry. if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available. 4. galaxy mass distribution if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation. Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 2 if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms. 5. galaxy location if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted. if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation 6. decay rate of cold dark matter particles if too small: too few dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which prevents star formation from lasting long enough in large galaxies so that life-supportable planets become possible. if too great: too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which will make the orbits of solartype stars unstable over long time periods and lead to the generation of deadly radiation episodes. 7. hypernovae eruptions if too few not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets. if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets. if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system 8. supernovae eruptions if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets. if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets. if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated. if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation. 9. white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed. if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated. if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production. if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet. 10. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed. if closer: nebula would be blown apart.
11. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption if earlier: nebula would be blown apart. if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements. 12. number of stars in parent star birth aggregate if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula. if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed. 13. star formation history in parent star vicinity if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed. 14. birth date of the star-planetary system if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form. Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 3 if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium- 235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet. 15. parent star distance from center of galaxy if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics. if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics. 16. parent star distance from closest spiral arm if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great. 17. z-axis heights of star’s orbit if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life. 18. quantity of galactic dust if too small: star and planet formation rate is inadequate; star and planet formation occurs too late; too much exposure to stellar ultraviolet radiation. if too large: blocked view of the Galaxy and of objects beyond the Galaxy; star and planet formation occurs too soon and at too high of a rate; too many collisions and orbit perturbations in the Galaxy and in the planetary system. 19. number of stars in the planetary system if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life. 20. parent star age if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly. if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
21. parent star mass if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly. if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen. 22. parent star metallicity if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist. if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations. 23. parent star color if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient. if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient. 24. galactic tides if too weak: too low of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region. if too strong too high of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region. 25. H3 + production if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form. if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life. 26. flux of cosmic ray protons if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere. Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 4 if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere. 27. solar wind if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud formation. if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud formation. 28. parent star luminosity relative to speciation if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop. if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop. 29. surface gravity (escape velocity) if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane. if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water. 30. distance from parent star if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle. if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
31. inclination of orbit if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme. 32. orbital eccentricity if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme. 33. axial tilt if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great. if less: surface temperature differences would be too great. 34. rate of change of axial tilt if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme. 35. rotation period if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great. if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. 36. rate of change in rotation period if longer:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained. if shorter:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained. 37. planet age if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly. if too old: planet would rotate too slowly. 38. magnetic field if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe; too few cosmic ray protons would reach planet’s troposphere which would inhibit adequate cloud formation. if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation; time between magnetic reversals would be too brief for the long term maintenance of advanced life civilization 39. thickness of crust if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust. if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great. 40. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop. if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop. Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 5
41. asteroidal and cometary collision rate if greater: too many species would become extinct. if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life. 42. mass of body colliding with primordial Earth if smaller: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small. if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed. 43. timing of body colliding with primordial Earth. if earlier: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small. if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life. 44. collision location of body colliding with primordial Earth if too close to grazing: insufficient debris to form large moon; inadequate annihilation of Earth’s primordial atmosphere; inadequate transfer of heavy elements to Earth. if too close to dead center: damage from collision would be too destructive for future life to survive. 45. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly. if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly. 46. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop. if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis. 47. water vapor level in atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop. if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land. 48. atmospheric electric discharge rate if greater: too much fire destruction would occur. if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere. 49. ozone level in atmosphere if greater: surface temperatures would be too low. if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface. 50. oxygen quantity in atmosphere if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily. if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
51. 5 nitrogen quantity in atmosphere if greater: too much buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too much nitrogen fixation for support of diverse plant species. if less: too little buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too little nitrogen fixation for support of diverse plant species. 52. ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron for the planet if too low: inadequate levels of plate tectonic and volcanic activity. if too high: radiation, earthquakes, and volcanoes at levels too high for advanced life. 53. rate of interior heat loss if too low: inadequate energy to drive the required levels of plate tectonic and volcanic activity. if too high: plate tectonic and volcanic activity shuts down too quickly. 54. seismic activity Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 6 if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed; continents would grow to too large a size; vertical relief on the continents would be inadequate for the proper distribution of rainfall, snow pack, and erosion if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonates; continents would not grow to a large enough size; vertical relief on the continents would become too great 55. volcanic activity if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would become too degraded for life. if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed. 56. rate of decline in tectonic activity if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet. if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet. 57. rate of decline in volcanic activity if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet. if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet. 58. timing of birth of continent formation if too early: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized. if too late: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized. 59. oceans-to-continents ratio if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. 60. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio if smaller: advanced life will lack the needed land mass area. if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.
61. global distribution of continents (for Earth) if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced life. 62. frequency and extent of ice ages if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations exposed for diverse and advanced life; insufficient production of high quality harbors for advanced life if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing. 63. soil mineralization if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. 64. gravitational interaction with a moon if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe .if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficent; magnetic field would be too weak. 65. Jupiter distance if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth 66. Jupiter mass Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 7 if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. 67. drift in major planet distances if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable. if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. 68. major planet eccentricities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone. 69. major planet orbital instabilities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone. 70. mass of Neptune if too small: not enough Kuiper Belt Objects (asteroids beyond Neptune) would be scattered out of the solar system. if too large: chaotic resonances among the gas giant planets would occur.
Keep producing them--it still doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether they are INDEPENDENT of each other.
You have 400?
I could produce a list of 401 things that had to be "fine-tuned" just for a sand grain to blow into my house! Within our universe! That would mean the sand grain couldn't make it into my house without divine intervention--probabilistically . . .
You have 402? I'll make up a few more!
For the fine-tuning argument to have any logical effect, it must be proved that all constants are independent and there are no other universes with different constants that produce life.
As another example, any particular poker hand is extremely rare. However, if all you're trying to do is beat an opponent who has 1-pair (metaphorically have a universe that supports life), then there are gobs and gobs of card combination (universal constant combinations) that win.
I understand the emotional attachment of the fine-tuning argument because it appeals to the "sense of wonder" that we all experience. But logically, it's just a fallacy of incredulity. I.e. You can't imagine how all these constants came to be.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but I believe the understanding is that all the forces were actually 1 (one) single force just after the universe inflated from the singularity. They separated into separate forces later. So they (and all other constants) may be simply part of something much more fundamental.
Believe whatever you want about fine-tuning. Science will keep plugging along on this topic--perhaps someday they will make some earth shattering discovery that brings down the whole fine-tuning argument. In the meantime, "I don't know" is fine with me.
Actually I may have overstepped on the previous post, I don't actually know if their are multiple different combinations of constants that produce universes capable of supporting intelligent life like our own.
This would in effect be an untestable condition (at current levels of technology/understanding). However, some of the "constants" can vary by small amounts, so there is some play (as far as I understand it).
But the challenge, in effect, still remains for the fine-tuning argument to develop all the permutations and combinations of constants that produce universes incapable of supporting life, versus the permutations and combinations of constants that produce universes UNsupportive of intelligent life.
At current technology, this is impossible, so "I don't know" is the best provisional position.
"I believe in fine-tuning" is a statement of faith. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is . . .
I don't think it's blind faith to believe in the fine-tuning characteristics of the universe. They are well documented in the scientific journals. They are solid pieces of science. If you have more of them that's terrific!
I don't claim it as a PROOF for God. Just a bit of a pointer in that direction.
Victor Stenger has examined the fine tuning argument in books and papers. His conclusion is that varying the parameters still allows for interesting universes where life could develop. See, for example: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Hoyle.pdf
Probability is a mathematical concept derived from observation of the physical universe. It's completely nonsensical to talk about probability being a requirement for the universe to form the way it did.
The universe is either designed for life, or it has qualities that allow certain forms of life to arise in some places some of the time. If it's designed for life, it's the most horribly inefficient design ever.
"I could produce a list of 401 things that had to be "fine-tuned" just for a sand grain to blow into my house! Within our universe! That would mean the sand grain couldn't make it into my house without divine intervention"
YES! You would be correct. Even a simple pebble is evidence for divine creation and you are blind to it.
In an infinite 3 dimensional spatial existence probabilities are NOT the issue. You would need Intelligent intervention for ANY such atomic structure and order. Cole is just taking it to another level for those who deny what is obvious in beholding the order of creation.
These alleged mistakes in the temporary creation can easily be explained individually (most of them involving population control of the species). The fact that the creation is under a curse due to the real problem of evil(sin/disobedience) easily explains everything else.
Just consider Adam with a working appendix and a healthier digestive tract before the fall and you will be on the right track.
"The universe is either designed for life, or it has qualities that allow certain forms of life to arise in some places some of the time. If it's designed for life, it's the most horribly inefficient design ever." (emphasis mine)
Mike, I would have to disagree with this statement. Obviously if it were true then you wouldn't be here to say it.
"His conclusion is that varying the parameters still allows for interesting universes where life could develop." - Jeffry
I would say he's half right. There is some reason to believe that there may even be an infinite number of ways in which a universe could produce conscious observers. With the strength of gravity for example, one could argue hypothetically that life might still develop if the strength were increased from 1 to 1.0001 we (or something like us) would still be here. You could divide in between an infinite number of those values and still get conscious observers.
But just having an infinite number of universes or ways of getting life means nothing if the values of their respective constants for this multiverse are not in line for life. For example you could have an infinite number of universes in which all other constants are optimal for some kind of life (humans or something else) but if all of them have values for gravity that fall between 100 and 101, you can guarantee that all such universes will stop expanding immediately and fall back into a singularity again.
This is probably the simplest example I know of for why infinite ways of getting universes or life itself does not by itself explain away tuned physical constants.
"Now all you have to do is prove that they are all completely INDEPENDENT variables."
This begs the question, these are all separately measurable constants, so it is safe to say they are independent. But pretending for a moment that they aren't (and are linked in a way a circle's diameter is linked to it's circumference), you still fall back on the question of why these constants all just so happened to be connected in a way that would allow some form (humans or not) of life capable of questioning the origins of their own existence.
"Please show us a universe where the constants are different and there is no life."
This is like doubting the claim that if someone ends up in the Earth's core, they'll be incinerated. The fact is, we don't need to actually change the constants in order to see that it would be detrimental towards life. We know for example (mostly thanks to astrophysics) that if gravity were twice as strong the universe would collapse back in on itself in the same since that a rocket twice as heavy will fly half as high. You don't need to actually test that kind of scenario in order to reasonably say what will happen.
John, I must say nonetheless that your book makes the four horseman seem totally obsolete in terms of the critiques of religion out there.
As someone who falls somewhere between atheist and pantheo-deistic thinking, I wonder what your thoughts are on a philosopher's god? I'm in a rare sort of camp that accepts most (but not all) design arguments but doesn't know what to extrapolate from them. For sure I reject the notion of a full-blown theistic god, but what are your main criticisms of a philosopher's god?
The philosopher's god is merely an answer to the origins of existence. It's merely a conclusion from some sort of argument. It's a god of the gaps type of an argument. We cannot explain some phenomena so let's allow a supernatural explanation into our equations.
I have come to think that once we allow a supernatural explanation into our equations then any supernatural explanation will do. Since we reject all other supernatural explanations, we should reject the theistic one as well. I also don't think mush of this as a supernatural explanation when we see the continued results coming from methodological naturalism. Such an explanation is unnecessary. Lastly, even if there is some sort of god he can safely be ignored as irrelevant to our lives. For a distant god is no different than none at all.
I love the christian arguments on here....lol....Gods curse on man being the reason our jaws are too small for our wisdom teeth...lol...would you christian people listen to yourselves! You people will go to any length to hold up what you want to be true!
This link, what I had the time to read anyway, seems to assume that all Intelligent Design theories presuppose a Creation Story, or one point in time when all things were made. Many Intelligent Design theorists, as well as subscribers to the Intelligent Design theory (like myself), see the value in and agree with evolution. Evolution does not contradict intelligent design.
From what I was able to read, the article was arguing against Creation Theory and not so much Intelligent Design Theory.
29 comments:
Well, I'm still a Theist but I'm not a Christian Theist. I don't know about all the "anomalies" in living things but I'm sure God has sufficient reasons for allowing these "anomalies." What seem to be "bad designs" can actually serve a good purpose. Besides, the universe is extremely fine-tuned for life. Without these extremly fine-tuned parameters there would be no life. The evidence would then cancel itself out.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions
34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions
36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions
38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions
39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
40. Density of white dwarf binaries
41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
44. Mass values for the active neutrinos
45. Number of different species of active neutrinos
46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history
57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) cease to form
62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3
66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
73. Constancy of dark energy factors
74. Epoch for star formation peak
75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
78. Level of charge-parity violation
79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
84. Water’s temperature of maximum density
85. Water’s heat of fusion
86. Water’s heat of vaporization
87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
90. Dioxygen’s kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions
97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies
98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between galaxy clusters
99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon
nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars
100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova eruptions of population III stars
101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second generation) stars
102. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that are processed by the first stars (population III stars)
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4
103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies
104. Constancy of the fine structure constants
105. Constancy of the velocity of light
106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space
107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio
108. Constancy of the gravitational constant
109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space
110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history
111. Mean temperature of exotic matter
112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps
113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime
114. Nature of cosmic defects
115. Number density of cosmic defects
116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the universe
117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the hypernova eruptions of population III stars
118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet
119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the first five billion years of cosmic history
120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day universe
121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space by dwarf galaxies
122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for dwarf galaxies
123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate
124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by dwarf galaxies during the first
two billion years of cosmic history
125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by galactic superwinds during the
first three billion years of cosmic history
126. Average size of cosmic voids
127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space
128. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that reside in the warm-hot intergalactic medium
129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit of dark matter halo virial mass)
130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population III stars (the universe’s first stars)
131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the number density dark matter halos in the
present era universe
132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust
133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78
134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies
135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to baryons in the circumgalactic media
136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and exotic dark matter particles
137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the universe)
138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 5
139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters
140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic reionization
Cole,
Now all you have to do is prove that they are all completely INDEPENDENT variables.
Please show us a universe where the constants are different and there is no life.
Cole,
Probabilistically speaking, you shouldn't be here either without fine-tuning. You must have been intentionally formed by an agent.
The evidence of random sperm meeting random egg is too phenomenal:
1. Your Dad had to exist.
2. Your Mom had to exist.
3. They had to cross paths with each other at some point in their lives.
4. They had to say the right things to each other.
5. They had to have sex on the EXACT SPECIFIC point in time when they did, otherwise, the sperm would have been different. The body produces and reabsorbs sperm.
6. They probably had to be in the EXACT SPECIFIC position they were in for the EXACT SPECIFIC sperm to meet the egg--otherwise, no Cole.
7. Make up thousands more exact specific circumstances that must be met for Cole to exist.
8. Repeat for all generations prior to Mom and Dad.
Conclusion: It is probabilistically impossible for Cole to exist--yet here he is.
Either the conditions for Cole's existence were fine-tuned, or fine-tuning is probably just an illusion.
Jim,
I don't take the fine-tuning of the universe to be an illusion. I believe the fine-tuning is real just as the universe is real. You can believe that way if you want to but I don't. There is also apparant evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support.
The environmental requirements for life to exist depend on the life form in question. The conditions
for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as for advanced life. A life form's activity level and longevity also make a significant difference. Given these variables, there are six distinct clusters of these environmental necessities, from the broadest to the narrowest:
1. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
2. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
3. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
4. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
5. for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
6. for advanced life that survives for a long time period
Complicating factors exist however. For example, unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophile
life) is typically more susceptible to radiation damage and has a low molecular repair rate. Thus, the origin
of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers,“Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9). The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist.
1. galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
2. galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic
eruptions.
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.
3. galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life
chemistry.
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life
chemistry would not be available.
4. galaxy mass distribution
if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation.
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 2
if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and
radiation from adjacent spiral arms.
5. galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.
if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star
formation
6. decay rate of cold dark matter particles
if too small: too few dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which prevents star formation from
lasting long enough in large galaxies so that life-supportable planets become possible.
if too great: too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which will make the orbits of solartype
stars unstable over long time periods and lead to the generation of deadly radiation
episodes.
7. hypernovae eruptions
if too few not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate
for life; too many collision events in planetary system
if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced
life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced
life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate
for life; too many collision events in planetary system
8. supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at
an early enough time in cosmic history
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
9. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated.
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production.
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet.
10. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed.
if closer: nebula would be blown apart.
11. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart.
if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements.
12. number of stars in parent star birth aggregate
if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula.
if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed.
13. star formation history in parent star vicinity
if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed.
14. birth date of the star-planetary system
if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form.
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 3
if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-
235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics
to be sustained on a rocky planet.
15. parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; wrong
abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet
core characteristics.
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits;
wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate
planet core characteristics.
16. parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great.
17. z-axis heights of star’s orbit
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
18. quantity of galactic dust
if too small: star and planet formation rate is inadequate; star and planet formation occurs too
late; too much exposure to stellar ultraviolet radiation.
if too large: blocked view of the Galaxy and of objects beyond the Galaxy; star and planet formation
occurs too soon and at too high of a rate; too many collisions and orbit perturbations
in the Galaxy and in the planetary system.
19. number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
20. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
21. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.
if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life
planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars
and oxygen.
22. parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist.
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element
concentrations.
23. parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
24. galactic tides
if too weak: too low of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region.
if too strong too high of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region.
25. H3
+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form.
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life.
26. flux of cosmic ray protons
if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere.
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 4
if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere.
27. solar wind
if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud
formation.
if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud
formation.
28. parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop.
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.
29. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water.
30. distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
31. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
32. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
33. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
34. rate of change of axial tilt
if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become
too extreme.
35. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
36. rate of change in rotation period
if longer:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
if shorter:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
37. planet age
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly.
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly.
38. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe; too few cosmic ray protons would
reach planet’s troposphere which would inhibit adequate cloud formation.
if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation;
time between magnetic reversals would be too brief for the long term maintenance of
advanced life civilization
39. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
40. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 5
41. asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
42. mass of body colliding with primordial Earth
if smaller: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed.
43. timing of body colliding with primordial Earth.
if earlier: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life.
44. collision location of body colliding with primordial Earth
if too close to grazing: insufficient debris to form large moon; inadequate annihilation of
Earth’s primordial atmosphere; inadequate transfer of heavy elements to Earth.
if too close to dead center: damage from collision would be too destructive for future life to
survive.
45. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
46. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
47. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
48. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
49. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the
surface.
50. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
51. 5 nitrogen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: too much buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too much nitrogen
fixation for support of diverse plant species.
if less: too little buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too little nitrogen fixation
for support of diverse plant species.
52. ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron for the planet
if too low: inadequate levels of plate tectonic and volcanic activity.
if too high: radiation, earthquakes, and volcanoes at levels too high for advanced life.
53. rate of interior heat loss
if too low: inadequate energy to drive the required levels of plate tectonic and volcanic
activity.
if too high: plate tectonic and volcanic activity shuts down too quickly.
54. seismic activity
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 6
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed; continents would grow to too large a size;
vertical relief on the continents would be inadequate for the proper distribution of rainfall,
snow pack, and erosion
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through
tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonates; continents
would not grow to a large enough size; vertical relief on the continents would become
too great
55. volcanic activity
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere;
soil mineralization would become too degraded for life.
if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed.
56. rate of decline in tectonic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
57. rate of decline in volcanic activity
if slower: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
if faster: advanced life can never survive on the planet.
58. timing of birth of continent formation
if too early: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized.
if too late: silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized.
59. oceans-to-continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
60. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio
if smaller: advanced life will lack the needed land mass area.
if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.
61. global distribution of continents (for Earth)
if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced
life.
62. frequency and extent of ice ages
if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced
life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations exposed for diverse and advanced
life; insufficient production of high quality harbors for advanced life
if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing.
63. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
64. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe
.if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and
life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficent; magnetic
field would be too weak.
65. Jupiter distance
if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or
prevent the formation of Earth
66. Jupiter mass
Part 2. Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 7
if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb
or prevent the formation of Earth
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
67. drift in major planet distances
if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
68. major planet eccentricities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
69. major planet orbital instabilities
if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone.
70. mass of Neptune
if too small: not enough Kuiper Belt Objects (asteroids beyond Neptune) would be scattered
out of the solar system.
if too large: chaotic resonances among the gas giant planets would occur.
Jim,
This is just a few. There are now 400 of these.
Yup,
Keep producing them--it still doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether they are INDEPENDENT of each other.
You have 400?
I could produce a list of 401 things that had to be "fine-tuned" just for a sand grain to blow into my house! Within our universe! That would mean the sand grain couldn't make it into my house without divine intervention--probabilistically . . .
You have 402? I'll make up a few more!
For the fine-tuning argument to have any logical effect, it must be proved that all constants are independent and there are no other universes with different constants that produce life.
As another example, any particular poker hand is extremely rare. However, if all you're trying to do is beat an opponent who has 1-pair (metaphorically have a universe that supports life), then there are gobs and gobs of card combination (universal constant combinations) that win.
I understand the emotional attachment of the fine-tuning argument because it appeals to the "sense of wonder" that we all experience. But logically, it's just a fallacy of incredulity. I.e. You can't imagine how all these constants came to be.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but I believe the understanding is that all the forces were actually 1 (one) single force just after the universe inflated from the singularity. They separated into separate forces later. So they (and all other constants) may be simply part of something much more fundamental.
Believe whatever you want about fine-tuning. Science will keep plugging along on this topic--perhaps someday they will make some earth shattering discovery that brings down the whole fine-tuning argument. In the meantime, "I don't know" is fine with me.
Actually I may have overstepped on the previous post, I don't actually know if their are multiple different combinations of constants that produce universes capable of supporting intelligent life like our own.
This would in effect be an untestable condition (at current levels of technology/understanding). However, some of the "constants" can vary by small amounts, so there is some play (as far as I understand it).
But the challenge, in effect, still remains for the fine-tuning argument to develop all the permutations and combinations of constants that produce universes incapable of supporting life, versus the permutations and combinations of constants that produce universes UNsupportive of intelligent life.
At current technology, this is impossible, so "I don't know" is the best provisional position.
"I believe in fine-tuning" is a statement of faith. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is . . .
Jim,
I don't think it's blind faith to believe in the fine-tuning characteristics of the universe. They are well documented in the scientific journals. They are solid pieces of science. If you have more of them that's terrific!
I don't claim it as a PROOF for God. Just a bit of a pointer in that direction.
Victor Stenger has examined the fine tuning argument in books and papers. His conclusion is that varying the parameters still allows for interesting universes where life could develop. See, for example:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Hoyle.pdf
Cole,
Probability is a mathematical concept derived from observation of the physical universe. It's completely nonsensical to talk about probability being a requirement for the universe to form the way it did.
The universe is either designed for life, or it has qualities that allow certain forms of life to arise in some places some of the time. If it's designed for life, it's the most horribly inefficient design ever.
"I could produce a list of 401 things that had to be "fine-tuned" just for a sand grain to blow into my house! Within our universe! That would mean the sand grain couldn't make it into my house without divine intervention"
YES! You would be correct. Even a simple pebble is evidence for divine creation and you are blind to it.
In an infinite 3 dimensional spatial existence probabilities are NOT the issue. You would need Intelligent intervention for ANY such atomic structure and order. Cole is just taking it to another level for those who deny what is obvious in beholding the order of creation.
These alleged mistakes in the temporary creation can easily be explained individually (most of them involving population control of the species). The fact that the creation is under a curse due to the real problem of evil(sin/disobedience) easily explains everything else.
Just consider Adam with a working appendix and a healthier digestive tract before the fall and you will be on the right track.
Staying the course is a different story.
"the universe is extremely fine-tuned for life"
It seems that Cole is making the 'Sentient Puddle' argument.
"The universe is either designed for life, or it has qualities that allow certain forms of life to arise in some places some of the time. If it's designed for life, it's the most horribly inefficient design ever." (emphasis mine)
Mike, I would have to disagree with this statement. Obviously if it were true then you wouldn't be here to say it.
"His conclusion is that varying the parameters still allows for interesting universes where life could develop." - Jeffry
I would say he's half right. There is some reason to believe that there may even be an infinite number of ways in which a universe could produce conscious observers. With the strength of gravity for example, one could argue hypothetically that life might still develop if the strength were increased from 1 to 1.0001 we (or something like us) would still be here. You could divide in between an infinite number of those values and still get conscious observers.
But just having an infinite number of universes or ways of getting life means nothing if the values of their respective constants for this multiverse are not in line for life. For example you could have an infinite number of universes in which all other constants are optimal for some kind of life (humans or something else) but if all of them have values for gravity that fall between 100 and 101, you can guarantee that all such universes will stop expanding immediately and fall back into a singularity again.
This is probably the simplest example I know of for why infinite ways of getting universes or life itself does not by itself explain away tuned physical constants.
"Now all you have to do is prove that they are all completely INDEPENDENT variables."
This begs the question, these are all separately measurable constants, so it is safe to say they are independent. But pretending for a moment that they aren't (and are linked in a way a circle's diameter is linked to it's circumference), you still fall back on the question of why these constants all just so happened to be connected in a way that would allow some form (humans or not) of life capable of questioning the origins of their own existence.
"Please show us a universe where the constants are different and there is no life."
This is like doubting the claim that if someone ends up in the Earth's core, they'll be incinerated. The fact is, we don't need to actually change the constants in order to see that it would be detrimental towards life. We know for example (mostly thanks to astrophysics) that if gravity were twice as strong the universe would collapse back in on itself in the same since that a rocket twice as heavy will fly half as high. You don't need to actually test that kind of scenario in order to reasonably say what will happen.
*sense,* sorry for the typo.
John, I must say nonetheless that your book makes the four horseman seem totally obsolete in terms of the critiques of religion out there.
As someone who falls somewhere between atheist and pantheo-deistic thinking, I wonder what your thoughts are on a philosopher's god? I'm in a rare sort of camp that accepts most (but not all) design arguments but doesn't know what to extrapolate from them. For sure I reject the notion of a full-blown theistic god, but what are your main criticisms of a philosopher's god?
Rodney, thanks for your high praise of my book.
The philosopher's god is merely an answer to the origins of existence. It's merely a conclusion from some sort of argument. It's a god of the gaps type of an argument. We cannot explain some phenomena so let's allow a supernatural explanation into our equations.
I have come to think that once we allow a supernatural explanation into our equations then any supernatural explanation will do. Since we reject all other supernatural explanations, we should reject the theistic one as well. I also don't think mush of this as a supernatural explanation when we see the continued results coming from methodological naturalism. Such an explanation is unnecessary. Lastly, even if there is some sort of god he can safely be ignored as irrelevant to our lives. For a distant god is no different than none at all.
I love the christian arguments on here....lol....Gods curse on man being the reason our jaws are too small for our wisdom teeth...lol...would you christian people listen to yourselves!
You people will go to any length to hold up what you want to be true!
This link, what I had the time to read anyway, seems to assume that all Intelligent Design theories presuppose a Creation Story, or one point in time when all things were made. Many Intelligent Design theorists, as well as subscribers to the Intelligent Design theory (like myself), see the value in and agree with evolution. Evolution does not contradict intelligent design.
From what I was able to read, the article was arguing against Creation Theory and not so much Intelligent Design Theory.
Post a Comment