Anthropics

The Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning Arguments


New Project in the Works

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning

How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity

(Titles are tentative)

Summary

Draft of Monday, April 6, 2009 for comments only. Please do not copy, quote, or distribute.

For several decades now theologians and theistic physicists have promoted a sophisticated form of intelligent design that applies to physics and cosmology rather than biology.  The claim is that the constants of nature are fine-tuned for life, so that the tiniest change in any one of many of these quantities and life, as we know it on Earth would have been impossible. These are known as the anthropic coincidences. In many people’s minds, including some ardent atheists, this is the most powerful scientific case that has ever been made for the existence of a supernatural creation—at least a possible signal that the universe could not have come about naturally.
 
In 1974 physicist Brandon Carter introduced the anthropic principle, which proposed that the coincidences were not chance but somehow built into the structure of the universe. Carter’s proposal is referred to as the strong form of the anthropic principle. In its weak form, the anthropic principle simply points out the obvious fact that if the constants of nature were not suitable for life, we would not be here to talk about them.

If our universe had a different set of constants, and perhaps even different laws of physics, then why could’t a different form of life have evolved? We have no reason to think that our form of life is the only one possible.

The theist response to this is that some of the constants are delicately balanced at such an extreme that no form of life would be conceivable if any one were just slightly changed. Assuming that a wide range of constants were possible, then, the argument goes, the chance that our universe would have been suitable for any form of life is negligible and an external agent was required to make it suitable. The atheist response to this is that we have no way of knowing what the range of constants might be, based on the information we have from just one universe.

One possible natural explanation for the anthropic coincidences is that multiple universes exist with different physical constants and laws and our life form evolved in the one suitable for us. Theists vehemently object that we have no evidence for multiple universes. However, modern cosmological theories suggest that ours is just one of an unlimited number of universes.

In this book I will gather together the arguments on both sides.  I will take a look at every constant that has been suggested as being fine-tuned and show that many have natural explanations.  My conclusion is that we do not even need to introduce multiple universes to render the fine-tuning argument unconvincing.

However, I will also review the serious attempts being made by many respected physicists and cosmologists to apply the anthropic principle to multiple universes and come up with some testable conclusions.

Finally I will show that the universe, far from being designed for humanity, is in fact very unfriendly to us and to our form of life.

I will not be making draft capters available for comment at this time. However I am preparting a series of "pisition papers" on teh vafrious constants whicu are open for discussion

Fine-Tuning Position Papers:

These are short papers (pdf) that discuss the various parameters that are suppoed to be fine-tuned but I claim have perfectly natrual explanations that do not require the anthropic principle, multiple universes, or God. They are not final and posted for comments only. Do not copy, quote, or distribute.

1. Why Gravity is not fine tuned.
2. Why c, h, and G are not fine-tuned.
3. Some more untunables.
4. Why nuclear efficiency is not fine-tuned
5. Livable Universes

See also

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.  Reality Check column in  Skeptical Briefs, Vol. 19, No. 2 June 2009.
For comment only. Do not quote, copy, or distribute.

If you would like to participate in the discussions of the topics being developed for the book, please join my avoid-L. email discussion group. Subscription requires approval. See home page for details. Do not contact me prioviately.

Slide Show

This keynote file contains the Keynote presentation for a talk to be given on June 26, 2009 in Brussels that contains all the the basic points I will try to make in the book. Uses the latest version on the Mac Leopard system.

For sad, underprivileged Windows users, try this  pdf file (6.2 Mb).

Earlier books where I have discussed fine-tuning

The Encyclopedia of Nonbelief

Tom Flynn, ed., Prometheus Books 2007, pp. 65-70.

The Anthropic Principle. Refer to published version when referencing..

Anthologies


Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Us? In  Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, essays edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004). This link is to submitted draft. Please quote or refer to published version. To read Rocky Mountain News column by Linda Seebach on this book, go here

The Anthropic Principle. Draft of a chapter for  Science, Religion, and Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Controversy edited by Arri risen and Gary Laderman, (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006).
Please refer to published version

Physics, Cosmology and the New Creationism  Chapter for Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism, Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007). Also in Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond, Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007).

MonkeyGod

Program to generate toy universes with different values of four physical constants. Note the emphasis on "toy." This is a very simple program that makes no attempt to generate a universe in detail. Its main purpose is to demonstrate that long-lived stars, which are probably required for the evolution of life, does not depend on some "fine tuning" of the constants of nature but occurs for a wide range of parameters. It also shows that the large number coincidence first proposed by Weyl is not uncommon.

Note that the weak interaction strength has not been included as a parameter. Also, the effect of strong interaction strength is not included in the calculation of astronomical quantities, although it does come in for the large number coincidence. While the gravitational strength does not appear as a parameter, it is varied through variations in the proton mass. For more details see the Philo paper below.

To generate your own universe, click on MonkeyGod.

I have used equations from "Dependence of macrophysical phenomena on the values of the fundamental constants: by W.H. Press and A.P. Lightman, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 310, 323-336 (1983).

Older Articles

Links

Anthropic-Principle.com. Here you will find both popular overviews and scholarly material on everything  related to observation selection effects, the anthropic principle, self-locating  belief, and associated applications and paradoxes in science and philosophy. By Nick Bostrom, Rea search Fellow  Philosophy  Faculty, Oxford University

Why the Universe is Just So by Craig Hogan U. Washington. Published in Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 1149, 2000.

Max Tegmark's Parallel Universes
 

You are invited to join the avoid-L. email discussion group. Subscription requires approval. See home page for details.

Return to VJS Home Page.