September 18, 2012
In my 2011 book The Fallacy of
Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us, I disputed the
claims that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants of physics provides
convincing evidence for divine design in the universe.[1] Critics of my book have claimed that my views are totally at
odds with those of the physics and cosmology communities. Here I will report on
my direct communications with several prominent physicists and cosmologists,
which show that, while they do not agree with me on all counts and wish to
avoid getting caught up in theological disputes, it is misleading to claim
their support for theistic claims.
On
September 1, 2012, I wrote to each: ÒIn 2011 I published a book
titled The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us
(Prometheus Books). If titles were allowed to be more descriptive, the
main title would have been The Fallacy of the Notion that the Parameters of
Cosmology and Physics Are So Fine-Tuned for Life, Especially Human Life,
that They Can Only Have Been the Result of
Supernatural Design.Ó
In
my initial emails, I asked them:
Would you be kind enough to
reply on whether you agree or disagree with the following two statements that
summarize the position I develop in the book:
1. The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are
fine-tuned to the universe.
2. Based on existing knowledge, we cannot demonstrate
that a natural explanation for the apparent fine-tuning is so unlikely as to
provide a strong case for the existence of supernatural intelligent design in
the universe.
Here are the results.
Martin Rees
Martin Rees is the
Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom and one of the most eminent astronomers and
cosmologists in the world. I
have communicated with Lord Rees by email several times in the past and he has
always graciously responded. He did so again here and we had several exchanges.
Given his high position
in the Kingdom, he understandably has to be very careful about what he says and
to avoid controversy. He requested that our emails remain private, which I will
certainly respect. However, I am free to quote from any published book or
paper.
Lord Rees has written
much on the subject of fine-tuning, both technical and popular,[2] and suggested the
following reference to a paper based on a chapter from a memorial volume for
Fred Hoyle, ÒNumerical Coincidences and 'Tuning' In Cosmology.Ó[3]
In this paper, Lord
Rees says, ÒIt is not guaranteed that simple equations permit complex
circumstances.Ó That is hardly a strong endorsement of Intelligent Design. Contrary
to the claims of those who promote Intelligent Design, the spontaneous, purely
natural transition from simplicity to complexity, if not guaranteed, certainly
happens in the natural world. Simplicity begets complexity. The prime example
is how, left alone in the absence of any external heat, water changes phase
from a simple vapor to less simple liquid to a complex solid.
Lord Rees rejects the
claim of theists that the multiverse scenario, which makes anthropic selection
a no-brainer, is untestable. He remarks, ÒSuch a hypothesis could even be
refuted: this would happen if our universe turned out to be even more specially
tuned than our presence requires.Ó It should be clear from this quotation that he
does not think that, as far as we can currently say, the universe is so finely
tuned for it to require an external designer.
Nothing in the published
writings of Lord Rees contradicts any of the main conclusions of my book.
Andrei
Linde
Andre Linde was one of original cosmologists who
independently proposed the theory of the inflationary universe.[4] I believe he was also
the first to seriously propose the multiverse scenario.[5] Here is how he
answered my two questions:
1. The
universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to the universe.
ÒThe answer is Ômaybe.Õ To explain what I mean: In the
theory of inflationary multiverse, based on string theory, the laws in
different parts of our universe may differ from each other. There are about 10500
different possibilities. We live in those parts of the universe where we can
exist, just like dolphins cannot exist on dry land. It is crucial though that
our universe is in fact a multiverse. For a brief introduction to the idea,
see http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0211048.pdf
and http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0302219.pdf.
ÒSo, the universe can
be easily fine-tuned for any kind of life, including ours. No design is needed.
If the universe exists in a single copy (no different types of laws of
physics), or if one of the available possibilities for the universe is
overwhelmingly more probable than all alternatives, then it is possible that we
are fine-tuned to the universe, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.0119.pdf.
However, this option, while possible, does not seem very likely to me. We hope
to learn more about it in the future.Ó
2. Based
on existing knowledge, we cannot demonstrate that a natural explanation for the
apparent fine-tuning is so unlikely as to provide a strong case for the
existence of supernatural intelligent design in the universe.
ÒSure. You may look at the closely related book by
Susskind on this issue:[6]
I have read SusskindÕs book. In Fallacy I did not dismiss the
multiverse scenario, which obviously solves the fine-tuning conundrum. I was
simply trying to show that, based on well-established physics and cosmology (no
speculations about strings, etc.), even for a single universe the constants of
physics cannot be shown to be so tightly constrained that no natural
explanation is viable.
Lee Smolin
Lee Smolin is a
well-regarded theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Canada. He is
the author of several excellent popular books and is noted for his original
work on theories of quantum gravity that do not involve String theory. HereÕs
what he wrote:
ÒThanks for writing. I
disagree with 1 and agree with 2. My view is that the parameters of the
standard models of physics and cosmology are fine tuned for the production of
massive stars leading to black holes, and that this can be explained as a
result of dynamical processes acting in the past, which I propose in the
theory of cosmological natural selection. This explains the
hospitality of the universe for life such as the plentitude of carbon and
oxygen as a byproduct of the fitness of the universe without any need for
theological explanations and in a way that is falsifiable.
ÒThis was discussed at length in my first book, Life of the Cosmos and I return to it in my forthcoming book, Time Reborn. I am attaching review
articles that describe the current status of cosmological natural selection.Ó[7]
When Smolin says he disagrees with my first question, it is
clear that he is not adopting the view that the universe is fine tuned to ÒusÓ
humans, but rather to life like ours based on carbon and oxygen. Furthermore,
he is not confirming supernatural design. Quite the opposite, he is proposing
that a natural selection process takes place in the formation of universes that
favors those with ample carbon and oxygen.
SmolinÕs ideas in no way refute anything in my book.
Alan Guth
Alan
Guth gained instant fame in 1981 with his proposal that the universe underwent
a period of exponential inflation shortly after it appeared lasting a tiny
fraction of a second before flattening out in the conventional, almost linear,
big bang.[8]
While others,[9] including
Linde as mentioned above, independently arrived at this notion,
Guth recognized its full significance in solving a number of existing problems
in cosmology. HereÕs how he responded:
ÒI certainly agree with you
that the fine-tuning of the universe does not imply any form of supernatural
intelligent design. I agree with your two statements,
1. The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are
fine-tuned to the universe.
2. Based on existing knowledge, we cannot
demonstrate that a natural explanation for the apparent fine-tuning is so
unlikely as to provide a strong case for the existence of supernatural intelligent design in the
universe.
But I would expand a bit to
mention that I consider the cosmological constant problem to be very real. It
needs some explanation, although the intelligent design solution does not make
much sense to me. I consider the cosmological constant problem much more
compelling than the other instances of fine-tunings that are discussed, since
the strikingly small value of the cosmological constant (compared to the Planck
scale or the supersymmetry-breaking scale) is rather shocking, and does not require
any assumptions about the nature of life to appreciate. I would add that I find
the explanations that you mention in your chapter on the subject, other than
the multiverse explanation, to be very unconvincing. None of them comes close
to having a solid mathematical formulation. Thus, I consider the cosmological constant
problem to be a significant piece of evidence for the multiverse.
ÒConcerning the need for a deity, I may differ slightly from you on one
related point. (I'm not really sure what you would say about this, so maybe we
agree.) I would say that we know essentially nothing about where the laws of
physics came from. I would therefore say that anyone who wants to attribute the
laws of physics to God is certainly welcome to do so, without any fear of
contradicting anything I know about science. I might add, however, that I don't
see that this hypothesis helps in any way to explain where the laws of physics
come from. One can simply define ÔGodÕ to be the entity responsible for the
laws of physics, but then one is still at a loss to learn what other properties
ÔGodÕ might have, or what origin ÔGodÕ has. So, the problem of the origin of
the laws of physics seems to just be pushed back one level, with no advantage.Ó
First, Guth agrees with my two
statements and states very clearly that fine-tuning does not imply Intelligent
Design. Second, he has read my book and makes only one negative comment. He is
unconvinced by my proposed possible solutions to the cosmological-constant
problem. However, he does not in anyway imply that a purely natural solution to
the problem is impossible.
One of the major misunderstandings of my book is on the matter of burden
of proof. Several of my critics have objected that I have not proved this or
that. Well, I donÕt regard the burden of proof to rest on my shoulders. The one
who makes the more extraordinary and less parsimonious claim, in this case that
the universe is fine tuned for life by a creator God, has the burden of proving
that all plausible natural explanations are impossible.
As for the laws of physics, I refer you to my 2006 book The Comprehensible
Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From?[10] The arguments I make in Fallacy do not depend on the proposal I made in that book.
In sum, those religious apologists who attempt to discredit
the Fallacy of Fine-Tuning by
claiming that I am in severe disagreement with the scientific community are simply
wrong. As we have seen, the prominent physicists and cosmologists I contacted
do not agree with me 100 percent. So, what else is new? ThatÕs what science is
all about: doubt, dispute, devilÕs advocacy.
Other scientists whose names have been mentioned by my
critics include Franck Wilczek, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Susskind. I could
not reach Wilczek, did not want to bother Hawking, and have so far received no
response from Susskind.
I wish scientists everywhere would speak out more
forcefully against those who claim that science has uncovered convincing evidence
for a creator God.
[1] Victor J. Stenger. The Fallacy of
Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2011.
[2] Martin J. Rees. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the
Universe. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
[3] Martin Rees, ÒNumerical Coincidences and 'Tuning' In Cosmology, Ó http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401424v1.pdf (accessed September 5, 2012).
[4] Andrei Linde. ÒThe Self-Reproducing
Infaltionary Universe.Ó Scientific American Presents, 1998, 98-104.
[5] A.D. Linde. ÒEternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary
Universe.Ó Physics Letters B 175, no. 4 (1986): 395-400; ÒThe
Self-Reproducing Infaltionary Universe.Ó Scientific American Presents,
1998, 98-104.
[6] Leonard Susskind. Cosmic Landscape:
String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York: Little,
Brown and Co., 2005.
[7] Lee Smolin. The Life of the Cosmos.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997; 2006. ÒThe Status of Cosmological
Natural SelectionÓ http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0612185v1.pdf (accessed
September 5, 2012); 2012. ÒA Perspective on the Landscape Problem.Ó
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.3373v1.pdf (accessed September 5, 2012).
[8] Alan H. Guth. ÒInflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the
Horizon and Flatness Problems.Ó Physical Review D 23, no. 2 (1981):
347-56.; The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic
Origins. Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1997.
[9] Demos Kazanas. ÒDynamics of the Universe
and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.Ó Astrophysical Journal 241 (1980):
L59-L63.
[10] Victor J. Stenger. The
Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2006.