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
- "Cosmythology:
Is
the
universe fine-tuned to produce us?" Preprint of paper on
the
Anthropic Principle published in Skeptic Vol. 4 No. 2 1996.
Please
do not distribute this version and refer to the published version.
- "Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches,
and
the
Laws of Physics." Paper originally submitted to Reports of
the
National Center for Science Education. This paper went through
several
revisions and finally appeared under the title "Anthropic
Design and the Laws of Physics" in CERN'S Vol. 18,
Number
3, May/June 1998, p. 812. Link to final text not available. Link
to original version on the talk.origins archive. Thanks to Brett
Vickers.
- Anthropic Design: Does the
Cosmos
Show
evidence of Purpose? Published in Skeptical Inquirer Vol.
23,
No. 4, July/August 1999.
- The Anthropic Coincidences:
A
Natural
Explanation. Published in the skeptical Intelligencer,
Vol. 3 Issue No. 3 July 1999.
- Natural
Explanations for the
Anthropic
Coincidences. Published in Philo,
Vol. 3 No. 2, Fall-Winter 2000,
pp.
50-67. Gives a more technical explanation of the equations used in MonkeyGod.
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.