material to add/modify 1. work on multiverse hypothesis slides. 2. response #3 to who designed god....

Material to Add/ModifyMaterial to Add/Modify

1.1. Work on Multiverse hypothesis slides.Work on Multiverse hypothesis slides.

2.2. Response #3 to who designed God.Response #3 to who designed God.

3.3. Updated with West Chester version through Updated with West Chester version through slide 57. [Check, however, on definition of slide 57. [Check, however, on definition of brute fact hypothesis and multiverse brute fact hypothesis and multiverse hypothesis.]hypothesis.]

4.4. Could put slide: Lincoln and God? Caption: Could put slide: Lincoln and God? Caption: is this more implausible than this? [Perhaps is this more implausible than this? [Perhaps put in who designed God section.]put in who designed God section.]

Links to Slides:Links to Slides: Additional Slide LocatorAdditional Slide Locator Evidence for Fine-tuning:Evidence for Fine-tuning: Multiverse HypothesisMultiverse Hypothesis Surprise Principle ArgumentSurprise Principle Argument

THE FINE-THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN TUNING DESIGN

ARGUMENT:ARGUMENT:An Argument from An Argument from

Physics and Cosmology Physics and Cosmology for the Divine Creation for the Divine Creation

of the Cosmosof the Cosmos

The Big Issue: Science The Big Issue: Science and Godand God

It is commonly assumed that modern It is commonly assumed that modern science undercuts belief in God. I will science undercuts belief in God. I will argue just the opposite, that the argue just the opposite, that the discoveries of physics and cosmology discoveries of physics and cosmology in the last 50 years strongly supports in the last 50 years strongly supports divine creation.

Before doing this, however, let’s put Before doing this, however, let’s put the sort of “design” argument I will be the sort of “design” argument I will be offering in offering in historical perspective::

History of Design History of Design ArgumentArgument

The Argument from Design is the The Argument from Design is the oldest (and most common) argument oldest (and most common) argument for the existence of “God,” both in for the existence of “God,” both in the East and in the West: the East and in the West: Ancient India:

200 CE and AfterStoics in Ancient Greece:300 BCE – 200CE

Thomas Aquinas1225 – 1275CE

Highpoint of Design Argument in Highpoint of Design Argument in West:West: William Paley, 1802.William Paley, 1802.

Explanations of Apparent Design of Plants and Animals:

Before Darwin (1859): GODGOD or CHANCE

After Darwin: GODGOD or EVOLUTION EVOLUTION or CHANCE

What is the Fine-Tuning? An What is the Fine-Tuning? An AnalogyAnalogy

In the last 50 years, scientists have discovered that the universe is analogous to a biosphere: biosphere: its basic structure must be precisely set for life to exist. This is called the fine-fine-tuning of the cosmos.tuning of the cosmos.

Arizona Biosphere (1991-1994): everything had to be constructed and set just right for it to be self-sustaining. Even then it failed in two years.

Three Types of Fine-Tuning for Three Types of Fine-Tuning for LifeLife

1. Fine-tuning of the 1. Fine-tuning of the laws of naturelaws of nature

2. Fine-tuning of the 2. Fine-tuning of the constants of constants of physicsphysics

3. Fine-tuning of the 3. Fine-tuning of the initial distribution initial distribution of mass-energy of mass-energy of the universe at the of the universe at the time of the big bang.time of the big bang.

Key AssumptionKey Assumption

Embodied conscious life Embodied conscious life requires stable, reproducible requires stable, reproducible complexity.complexity.

Fine-Tuning of Laws To say that the laws are fine-tuned To say that the laws are fine-tuned

means that the universe must have means that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order precisely the right set of laws in order for (highly complex) life to exist.for (highly complex) life to exist.

Examples: Existence of Gravity. Existence of Gravity. Existence of Electromagnetic Force.Existence of Electromagnetic Force. Existence of Strong Nuclear Force. Existence of Strong Nuclear Force. Existence of Principle of Quantization. Existence of Principle of Quantization. Existence of Pauli-Exclusion Principle.Existence of Pauli-Exclusion Principle.

No Gravity: No Stars, No No Gravity: No Stars, No Planets and therefore No Planets and therefore No

Life!Life!

Photo of N90, part of Small Magellanic Cloud,about 200,000 light years away. [Photo released January 2007. Image from http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0702.html]

Example of star formation caused by gravitationalattraction.

No Electromagnetic No Electromagnetic Force:Force:

Images from http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_model_04.gifibchem.com/IB/ibfiles/bonding/bon_img/cov2.gif

Then no atoms and therefore NO LIFE!

Then no chemical bonding andtherefore NO LIFE!

No Electromagnetic Force:No Electromagnetic Force:No Light, No Life!No Light, No Life!

Images courtesy of NASA

The Strong Nuclear The Strong Nuclear ForceForce

Have you ever wondered:Have you ever wondered:What holds the nucleusWhat holds the nucleustogether? After all, together? After all, protonsprotonsare positively charged are positively charged and like chargesand like chargesrepel each other. Thus, repel each other. Thus, shouldn’t the nucleus justshouldn’t the nucleus justfly apart?fly apart?

Protons Repelling each other

Answer: The Strong Nuclear Answer: The Strong Nuclear ForceForce

Strong “Nuclear Force” Collins Holding Killer Protons Together.

Therefore:Therefore:

No No Strong Nuclear Force, no Atoms, NO , no Atoms, NO LIFE!LIFE!

Principle of QuantizationPrinciple of Quantization

The principle of quantization is The principle of quantization is responsible for there being fixed responsible for there being fixed orbits within an atom.orbits within an atom.

Atom Without Atom Without QuantizationQuantization

Electron would be sucked into the Electron would be sucked into the nucleus:nucleus:

Illustration from www.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/fmc2.html ,University of Birmingham.

Principle of QuantizationPrinciple of Quantization

Principle of Quantization

allows for stable atomicallows for stable atomic

orbitals.orbitals.[[The Principle of Quantization The Principle of Quantization

was first proposed bywas first proposed by

Niels Bohr in 1910Niels Bohr in 1910]]


NoNo Principle of Quantization, No Atoms, , No Atoms, NO LIFE!NO LIFE!

Pauli Exclusion PrinciplePauli Exclusion Principle

Without the Pauli Exclusion Principle, all electrons would fall into lowest orbital, and hence there would be no complex chemistry.

[The Pauli Exclusion Principle dictates that only two electrons can occupy an orbital. It was first proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.]


No No Pauli Exclusion Pauli Exclusion PrinciplePrinciple, No Complex , No Complex

Chemistry, No Complex Life!Chemistry, No Complex Life!

ConclusionConclusion

Precisely the right laws are needed for Precisely the right laws are needed for highly complex life to exist. If one of highly complex life to exist. If one of these laws were missing, such life would these laws were missing, such life would be impossible.be impossible.

Summary of Examples:Summary of Examples:

Gravity

Electromagnetism

Strong Nuclear Force

Principle of Quantization

Pauli-Exclusion Principle

Fine-tuning of ConstantsFine-tuning of Constants

Question:Question: “What are the constants of “What are the constants of physics?”physics?”

Answer:Answer: They are the fundamental They are the fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics. that occur in the laws of physics.

Many of these must be precisely adjusted Many of these must be precisely adjusted to an extraordinary degree for life to to an extraordinary degree for life to occur.occur.

Example: Gravitational ConstantExample: Gravitational Constant

The The Gravitational constant – designated by – designated by G -- determines the strength of gravity via -- determines the strength of gravity via Newton’s Law of Gravity:Newton’s Law of Gravity:

F = F = Gmm11mm22/r/r22, ,

where F is the force between two masses, mwhere F is the force between two masses, m11 and mand m22, that are a distance r apart. , that are a distance r apart. Increase or decrease G and the force of gravity will correspondingly increase or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10(The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10-11-11 Nm Nm22/kg/kg22.).)

rm1

m2

How fine-tuned is How fine-tuned is the strength of the strength of gravity as given by gravity as given by G?G?To answer that, we must first To answer that, we must first look at the range of force look at the range of force strengths in nature:strengths in nature:

G0 = Current StrengthOf Gravity

Strength of Electromagnetism: 1037G0

Strength of Weak Force:1031G0

Strength of Strong Nuclear Force: 1040G0

1040G0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity

Range of Force Strengths (based on standard dimensionless measure)

(Ruler stretches across entire universe)

Ruler Representation of Force Ruler Representation of Force StrengthsStrengths

G0 = StrengthOf Gravity: 1 trillionthtrillionth of an inch.

Strength of Strong Force: 15 15 billion light years billion light years (1040G0)

Fine-Tuning of GravityFine-Tuning of GravityIf one increased the strength of gravity by If one increased the strength of gravity by one part in 1034 of the range of force of the range of force strengths (i.e., a billion-fold increase in strengths (i.e., a billion-fold increase in strength), strength), then::

Even single-celled organisms would be Even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets less than around crushed, and only planets less than around 100 feet in diameter could sustain life with 100 feet in diameter could sustain life with our brain-size. Such planets, however, our brain-size. Such planets, however, could not contain an ecosystem to support could not contain an ecosystem to support life of our level of intelligence. life of our level of intelligence.

Gravity Too StrongGravity Too Strong

Another Effect of Another Effect of Increasing Strength of Increasing Strength of

Gravity:Gravity:If one increased the strength of gravity by If one increased the strength of gravity by one part in 1037 of the range of force of the range of force strengths, then:strengths, then:

No long-lived stable stars ( that exist for ( that exist for longer than a billion yrs). This would hugely longer than a billion yrs). This would hugely decrease the chance of conscious, decrease the chance of conscious, embodied life evolving.embodied life evolving.

*Source: Collins, 2003, based on joint work *Source: Collins, 2003, based on joint work with astrophysicist Helmutt Schlattl .with astrophysicist Helmutt Schlattl .

Fine-Tuning of Gravity--Fine-Tuning of Gravity--ContinuedContinued

Thus, in order for life to occur, the Thus, in order for life to occur, the strength of gravity must fall within strength of gravity must fall within an exceedingly narrow range of an exceedingly narrow range of values compared to the total range values compared to the total range of force strengths. of force strengths.

Analogy: Analogy: Radio Dial Stretched Across the Radio Dial Stretched Across the UniverseUniverse

+15 billion light years

(Diagram not drawn to scale!)

WKLF (“K-Life”): You better tune your dial to the first one thousandth of an inch if you want a universe with life!

Fine-tuning of Fine-tuning of Cosmological ConstantCosmological Constant

The The cosmological constant is a term is a term in Einstein’s theory of gravity that in Einstein’s theory of gravity that influences the expansion rate of empty influences the expansion rate of empty space. It can be positive or negativespace. It can be positive or negative. . Unless it is within an extremely narrow Unless it is within an extremely narrow range around zero, the universe will range around zero, the universe will either collapse or expand too rapidly either collapse or expand too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. for galaxies and stars to form.

How fine-tuned is it? How fine-tuned is it?

Answer:Answer:

In the physics and cosmology literature, In the physics and cosmology literature, it is typically claimed that the it is typically claimed that the cosmological constant must fall within at cosmological constant must fall within at least least one part of 10one part of 105050 – that is, 1 – that is, 1 followed by 50 zeros -- of its theoretically followed by 50 zeros -- of its theoretically natural range in order for life to exist. natural range in order for life to exist.

This is an unimaginably precise degree This is an unimaginably precise degree of fine-tuning.of fine-tuning.

Cosmological Constant: Cosmological Constant: Radio Dial AnalogyRadio Dial Analogy

+15 billion light years.

WKLF: You must tune your dial to a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch around zero.

-15 billion light years.


Many of the constants of physics Many of the constants of physics must fall into an exceedingly narrow must fall into an exceedingly narrow range of values for life to exist. If range of values for life to exist. If they had slightly different values, no they had slightly different values, no complex material systems could complex material systems could arise. arise. This is widely recognized:This is widely recognized:

ExamplesExamples

Steven Hawking, Steven Hawking, the famous cosmologist:the famous cosmologist:““The remarkable fact is that the values of The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” make possible the development of life.” (Hawking, 1988, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 125.)(Hawking, 1988, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 125.)

Another ExampleAnother Example

Dr. Dennis Sciama, formerly director of Cambridge University Observatories: “If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature . . . it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.” (From the BBC special, “The Anthropic Principle.”)

Fine-Tuning of Initial Fine-Tuning of Initial Distribution of Mass-Energy:Distribution of Mass-Energy:

How precise must How precise must the initial the initial distribution of distribution of mass-energy be for mass-energy be for life to exist? life to exist?

Ask Roger Penrose, one of Britain’s leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists:

Analogy Analogy According to Penrose’s calculations, the precision of the Big Bang explosion must be much greater than that needed to blow up a pile of rubble and obtain a fully formed building replete with desks, tables, chairs, and computers!


The initial distribution of mass-The initial distribution of mass-energy must fall within an energy must fall within an exceedingly narrow range for exceedingly narrow range for complex life to occur.complex life to occur.

Recap: Types of Fine-Tuning Recap: Types of Fine-Tuning for Lifefor Life

Fine-tuning of Laws of PhysicsFine-tuning of Laws of Physics

Fine-tuning of Constants of PhysicsFine-tuning of Constants of Physics

Fine-tuning of the Initial Conditions Fine-tuning of the Initial Conditions of the Universeof the Universe

Summary of EvidenceSummary of Evidence

Biosphere Analogy: Dials must be perfectly set for life to occur. (Dials represent values of constants. Illustration by Becky Warner, 1994.)

Summary-continuedSummary-continued

The Universe must have an Enormously Precise Structure for Life to Exist

Cumulative Case ArgumentCumulative Case Argument for Fine-Tuning for Fine-Tuning

Laws of Physics Constants of

Physics

Initial Conditions of Universe.

As philosopher John Leslie notes: “Clues heaped upon clues constitute weighty evidence despite doubts about each element in the pile.”

How can we Explain the How can we Explain the Fine-Tuning?Fine-Tuning?

To many people the evidence of fine-tuning immediately suggests divine design divine design as the explanation. This is true for theists and non-theists.

“Ancient of Days” or “God’s Creating the Universe,” by William Blake (1757-1827).

Even non-theists agree that Divine Design is the commonsense interpretation of the fine-tuning:

Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies: "The impression of design is overwhelming" (The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203).

After discovering one of the first purported cases of fine-tuning, the late astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle declared: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … and that there are no blind forces in nature.”

So what alternatives do atheists offer to Divine Design?

The Two Major Alternatives The Two Major Alternatives Are: Are:

First Alternative:First Alternative:

Lucky Accident/Brute Fact Lucky Accident/Brute Fact Hypothesis.Hypothesis. The fact that a life- The fact that a life-permitting universe exists is just a permitting universe exists is just a coincidental fact that neither has nor coincidental fact that neither has nor requires an explanation. requires an explanation. Our Our existence is just an extraordinarily existence is just an extraordinarily “lucky accident.”“lucky accident.”

Comment:Comment:

Many people find the brute fact hypothesis as implausible as claiming that a picture of the face of Abraham Lincoln was just the result of an ink spill:

An An extraordinarily extraordinarily lucky ink spill?lucky ink spill?

Second Alternative: Second Alternative: Multiverse HypothesisMultiverse Hypothesis

But, perhaps if we spilled ink enough times But, perhaps if we spilled ink enough times we would get the face of Lincoln. This leads we would get the face of Lincoln. This leads us to the second explanation, the so-called us to the second explanation, the so-called ““multiverse hypothesismultiverse hypothesis,” ,” according to according to which there are an enormous number of which there are an enormous number of universes with different initial conditions, universes with different initial conditions, values for the constants of physics, and values for the constants of physics, and even the laws of nature. even the laws of nature. Thus, simply by Thus, simply by chance, some universe will have the chance, some universe will have the “winning combination” for life; supposedly “winning combination” for life; supposedly this explains why a life-permitting universe this explains why a life-permitting universe exists.exists.

Multiverse HypothesisMultiverse Hypothesis

Humans are winners of a cosmic Humans are winners of a cosmic lottery:lottery:

Two Prominent Two Prominent Advocates of Multiverse Advocates of Multiverse

HypothesisHypothesis

Professor Max Tegmark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cosmologist

Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain (since 1995).

Recent Books on MultiverseRecent Books on Multiverse

The multiverse hypothesis The multiverse hypothesis comes in two major versions:comes in two major versions:

Purely Metaphysical VersionPurely Metaphysical Version This is the idea that all possible universes This is the idea that all possible universes exist as a brute fact without any further exist as a brute fact without any further explanation. [Leading proponents: The explanation. [Leading proponents: The late Philosopher David Lewis, cosmologist late Philosopher David Lewis, cosmologist Max Tegmark.] Max Tegmark.] Not widely advocatedNot widely advocated..

Universes

Most Popular Version: Most Popular Version: Universe Generator VersionUniverse Generator Version

This is the idea that the This is the idea that the universes are universes are generated by some physical processgenerated by some physical process that I that I call a “Universe Generator.” call a “Universe Generator.” Advocated Advocated by many leading cosmologists by many leading cosmologists such as such as Stanford University’s Andrei Linde and Stanford University’s Andrei Linde and Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.

Inflationary-Superstring VersionInflationary-Superstring VersionThis is the most physically viable and most widely advocated This is the most physically viable and most widely advocated version of the universe-generator multiverse hypothesis. As a result version of the universe-generator multiverse hypothesis. As a result of an hypothesized of an hypothesized inflaton inflaton field that imparts a constant energy field that imparts a constant energy density to empty space, a multitude of regions of “pre-space” inflate density to empty space, a multitude of regions of “pre-space” inflate and then form bubble universes, with differing values for the and then form bubble universes, with differing values for the constants and differing lower-level laws of physics:constants and differing lower-level laws of physics:

Pre-Space

Bubble Universe

Analogy: Analogy: Ocean Full of Soap.

Possible Theistic Possible Theistic Responses:Responses:

Takes more faith to believe in many-Takes more faith to believe in many-universes generator than God. universes generator than God.

Where did universe generator come Where did universe generator come from? from?

Universe generator itself would need to Universe generator itself would need to be “well designed” to produce a single be “well designed” to produce a single life-sustaining universe.life-sustaining universe.

We will focus on the last responseWe will focus on the last response

..

Loaf of Bread

Bread Machine must be precisely constructed (and correctly operated) to produce decent loaves of bread. Further, ingredients must be right (e.g., the amount of yeast, gluten, water, etc.), otherwise loaves come out like “hockey pucks.”

Bread Machine AnalogyBread Machine Analogy

Bread Machine Analogy—Cont.

Wellbilt®

In analogy to a bread machine, it seems that the many-universe generator must have just the right laws and have just the right ingredients (initial conditions) to produce life-supporting universes.

Bread Machine Analogy Bread Machine Analogy Verified for Verified for

Inflationary-Superstring Inflationary-Superstring ScenarioScenarioIf one carefully examines the If one carefully examines the

inflationary superstring multiverse, inflationary superstring multiverse, it requires at least fiveit requires at least five

special mechanisms/laws. So, it special mechanisms/laws. So, it simply kicks the issue of design up simply kicks the issue of design up one level.one level.

ConclusionConclusionAt best, the many-universes generator At best, the many-universes generator hypothesis eliminates the hypothesis eliminates the quantitativequantitative case for design based on the fine-tuning of case for design based on the fine-tuning of the constants. The many-universes the constants. The many-universes generator still requires precise laws and the generator still requires precise laws and the right initial conditions in order to function. right initial conditions in order to function. Thus, the question remains, Who or what Thus, the question remains, Who or what “designed” the many-universes generator? “designed” the many-universes generator?

?

ConclusionsConclusions

1. The universe-generator 1. The universe-generator hypothesis does not significantly hypothesis does not significantly undercut the fine-tuning argument.undercut the fine-tuning argument.

2. Theism is compatible with the 2. Theism is compatible with the many-universes generator many-universes generator hypothesis. [God could have created hypothesis. [God could have created the universe via such a generator.]the universe via such a generator.]

End of Short Version of End of Short Version of Slide ShowSlide Show

11 slides ahead to additional slides11 slides ahead to additional slides

A further analysis A further analysis of the brute fact of the brute fact hypothesis:hypothesis:

Brute Fact Hypothesis?Brute Fact Hypothesis?

Even though this hypothesis strikes many Even though this hypothesis strikes many as highly implausible (think ink spill as highly implausible (think ink spill analogy), we cannot absolutely rule out analogy), we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that our universe simply the possibility that our universe simply exists as an extraordinarily lucky exists as an extraordinarily lucky accident. accident.

BUT, we can say is that the fine-tuning BUT, we can say is that the fine-tuning provides significantprovides significant evidenceevidence in support in support of theism over this hypothesis.of theism over this hypothesis.

How So?How So?By the By the Likelihood PrincipleLikelihood Principle, a standard , a standard principle of Confirmation Theory. For our principle of Confirmation Theory. For our case, this principle reduces to what I call case, this principle reduces to what I call the the “Surprise Principle”:“Surprise Principle”:

Surprise Principle Informally statedSurprise Principle Informally stated:: Whenever a body of data is much more Whenever a body of data is much more surprising under one hypothesis than surprising under one hypothesis than another, the data counts as evidence in another, the data counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which it is favor of the hypothesis under which it is least surprising.least surprising.

**Note: To avoid certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that is being confirmed should be restricted **Note: To avoid certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that is being confirmed should be restricted to those that have either been seriously advocated prior to E or for which we have independent to those that have either been seriously advocated prior to E or for which we have independent motivation.motivation.

ExampleExampleA defendant’s fingerprints matching A defendant’s fingerprints matching

those on a murder weapon is those on a murder weapon is typically taken as evidence of guilt: typically taken as evidence of guilt:

GUILTY!

Why?

Because:Because:

Match NotNot Surprising under Guilt Hypothesis:

Match very Surprising underInnocence Hypothesis:

Therefore by Surprise Principle:

Guilt over over InnocenceEvidence for

Applied to Fine-tuning Applied to Fine-tuning ArgumentArgument

Life-permitting Life-permitting UniverseUniverse

NotNot Surprising Under Theism: Very Surprising Under Brute Fact Hypothesis:


Therefore, a life-permitting universe Therefore, a life-permitting universe provides strong evidence of theism provides strong evidence of theism over the brute fact hypothesis:over the brute fact hypothesis:

Theism over over Brute FactStrong Strong Evidence forEvidence for

Guilt overover InnocenceStrong Evidence Strong Evidence forfor

For same reason that fingerprint match can provide strong evidence for guilt over innocence:

Note:Note:

Just as the matching of fingerprints Just as the matching of fingerprints on a gun do not absolutely on a gun do not absolutely proveprove guilt (since, for example, it is guilt (since, for example, it is possible that they could have possible that they could have matched by chance), the fine-tuning matched by chance), the fine-tuning does does NOT absolutely prove NOT absolutely prove divine divine creation. It only provides creation. It only provides strong strong evidenceevidence for divine creation over for divine creation over the brute fact hypothesis.the brute fact hypothesis.

Overall SummaryOverall Summary

Three responses to fine-tuning evidence:Three responses to fine-tuning evidence:

1. Theism1. Theism

2. Multiverse Hypothesis2. Multiverse Hypothesis

3. Brute Fact Hypothesis3. Brute Fact Hypothesis

Against (2): Multiverse generator requires Against (2): Multiverse generator requires “design.”“design.”

Against (3): By Surprise Principle, fine-tuning Against (3): By Surprise Principle, fine-tuning provides strong evidence in favor of theism provides strong evidence in favor of theism over Brute Fact Hypothesis.over Brute Fact Hypothesis.

For Further InformationFor Further Information

For Further Information, see my Fine-tuning For Further Information, see my Fine-tuning Website Website at at www.fine-tuning.org, www.fine-tuning.org, www.robincollins.orgwww.robincollins.org

Or simply type Robin Collins into GoogleOr simply type Robin Collins into Google

For an online debate on issue, see the For an online debate on issue, see the cosmology section of cosmology section of “The Great Debate” “The Great Debate” at www.infidels.orgat www.infidels.org

LOCATIONS OF LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SLIDESADDITIONAL SLIDES

OBJECTIONS:OBJECTIONS:

1. Faith and Reason [2 slides forward]1. Faith and Reason [2 slides forward]

2. Can’t prove God objection [3 slides forward]2. Can’t prove God objection [3 slides forward]

3. Who Designed God Objection [4 slides forward]3. Who Designed God Objection [4 slides forward]

4. Intelligent Design? [10 slides forward].4. Intelligent Design? [10 slides forward].

5. God of Gaps? [11 slides forward]5. God of Gaps? [11 slides forward]

6. Theory of Everything Objection [14 slides 6. Theory of Everything Objection [14 slides forward]forward]

7. Other Forms of Life Objection [15 slides forward]7. Other Forms of Life Objection [15 slides forward]

8. Other Life Permitting Laws [16 slides forward]8. Other Life Permitting Laws [16 slides forward]

9. Scale Objection [17 slides forward]9. Scale Objection [17 slides forward]

Location of Additional Location of Additional SlidesSlides

FURTHER EVIDENCES/COMMENTSFURTHER EVIDENCES/COMMENTS

10. No Probability Objection [18 slides forward]10. No Probability Objection [18 slides forward]

11. Why Does God Want ECA? [19 slides forward]11. Why Does God Want ECA? [19 slides forward]

1212 Higher-Level Types of Fine-tuning [20 slides Higher-Level Types of Fine-tuning [20 slides forward]forward]

13. Theism Compatible with Multiverse [23 slides 13. Theism Compatible with Multiverse [23 slides forward]forward]

14. Inflationary Cosmology Requires Right Laws 14. Inflationary Cosmology Requires Right Laws [25 slides forward][25 slides forward]

15. Elegance and Discoverability of Laws – Really 15. Elegance and Discoverability of Laws – Really Big Picture [30 slides forward].Big Picture [30 slides forward].

Location of Additional Location of Additional SlidesSlides

16. Linked Constant Objection16. Linked Constant Objection

17. Ongoing List of Conditions 17. Ongoing List of Conditions Necessary for LifeNecessary for Life

18. Dimensionless Constant Objection18. Dimensionless Constant Objection

Location of Standard Location of Standard SlidesSlides

Links to Slides:Links to Slides: Evidence for Fine-tuning:Evidence for Fine-tuning: Multiverse HypothesisMultiverse Hypothesis Surprise Principle ArgumentSurprise Principle Argument

CONCERNING FAITH CONCERNING FAITH AND REASONAND REASON

Question: Question: It seems that you trying to It seems that you trying to make belief in God rest on science. How make belief in God rest on science. How is that compatible with faith?is that compatible with faith?Answer: Answer: I am not claiming that science I am not claiming that science is, or should be, the primary reason we is, or should be, the primary reason we believe in God. Rather, I am only believe in God. Rather, I am only claiming that the fine-tuning data claiming that the fine-tuning data provides strong provides strong confirming evidence confirming evidence for the existence of God. for the existence of God. Faith, Faith, understood as a special mode of understood as a special mode of knowing similar to our ethical (and knowing similar to our ethical (and epistemic) intuitions, still plays an epistemic) intuitions, still plays an essential role. essential role. [END] [END]

CAN’T PROVE GOD CAN’T PROVE GOD OBJECTIONOBJECTION

Response: I do not claim to prove God, or Response: I do not claim to prove God, or even that God is the only adequate even that God is the only adequate hypothesis to explain the universe. hypothesis to explain the universe. Rather, I claim that the fine-tuning data Rather, I claim that the fine-tuning data provides provides confirming evidence confirming evidence for the for the existence of God. existence of God. Faith, as a special Faith, as a special mode of knowing similar to ethical mode of knowing similar to ethical intuition or conscience, still plays an intuition or conscience, still plays an essential role. essential role.

[END][END]

WHO DESIGNED GOD WHO DESIGNED GOD OBJECTIONOBJECTION

An extraordinarily common objection. In his An extraordinarily common objection. In his book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” (1980), atheist George Smith succinctly (1980), atheist George Smith succinctly summarizes the objection as follows: summarizes the objection as follows:

““If the universe is wonderfully designed, If the universe is wonderfully designed, surely God is even more wonderfully surely God is even more wonderfully designed. He must, therefore, have had a designed. He must, therefore, have had a designer even more wonderful than He is. If designer even more wonderful than He is. If GodGod did not require a designer, then there is did not require a designer, then there is no reason why such a relatively less no reason why such a relatively less wonderful thing as the universe needed one.”wonderful thing as the universe needed one.”

The idea behind the objection is that The idea behind the objection is that since explanation must stop since explanation must stop somewhere, we are better off somewhere, we are better off accepting the universe as the accepting the universe as the “ultimate brute fact” than God as the “ultimate brute fact” than God as the “ultimate brute fact,” since the latter “ultimate brute fact,” since the latter just transfers the “problem of just transfers the “problem of design” up one level.design” up one level.

Objection would hold if:Objection would hold if:

Anthropomorphic God:Anthropomorphic God:

Presumably, if God had a physical brain, or even a finite mind, then the same fine-tuning problem would confront the existence of God’s brain or mind: e.g., the matter composing God’s brain would have to be organized in just the right way for God to think.

God of Classical Theism God of Classical Theism notnot Anthropomorphic Anthropomorphic

The God of traditional theism, both The God of traditional theism, both East and West, has always been East and West, has always been conceived of as conceived of as infinite and infinite and unboundedunbounded, and thus with little , and thus with little or no or no internal complexityinternal complexity. Without . Without internal complexity, however, there internal complexity, however, there is no need to be designed or fine-is no need to be designed or fine-tuned.tuned.

GOD

Note: Arrows represent God as unbounded and infinite.

Real IssueReal IssueTherefore, the real issue is the Therefore, the real issue is the

plausibility of such an infinite being plausibility of such an infinite being existing and creating a fine-tuned existing and creating a fine-tuned universe versus such a universe universe versus such a universe existing as an enormously lucky existing as an enormously lucky accident.accident.GOD

A Lucky Accident? [Ink Spill Theory]

Which is more plausible?

Given the degree of fine-tuning Given the degree of fine-tuning necessary for life, many find it necessary for life, many find it enormously implausible to believe enormously implausible to believe that a life-permitting universe exists that a life-permitting universe exists as a brute fact. Thus, even though as a brute fact. Thus, even though no one has shown that the God no one has shown that the God hypothesis is coherent, many find it hypothesis is coherent, many find it far more plausible.far more plausible.

Confirmation Approach: Confirmation Approach: Political AnalogyPolitical Analogy

Your choice is between candidate A and candidate B. Your choice is between candidate A and candidate B. [Candidate A is analogous to God and candidate B to [Candidate A is analogous to God and candidate B to the non-theistic hypothesis.]the non-theistic hypothesis.]

People have had doubts about both candidate A and B. People have had doubts about both candidate A and B. (Analogous to situation before evidence of fine-tuning).(Analogous to situation before evidence of fine-tuning).

New and serious problems come to light with New and serious problems come to light with candidate B – e.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. candidate B – e.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. (Analogous to the new evidence of fine-tuning.)(Analogous to the new evidence of fine-tuning.)

Political Analogy-Political Analogy-continuedcontinued

Although the new evidence does not directly address Although the new evidence does not directly address your doubts about candidate A, it nonetheless gives your doubts about candidate A, it nonetheless gives you good reason to vote for A over B (given you have you good reason to vote for A over B (given you have to vote). to vote).

In the same way, In the same way, the fine-tuning evidence shows atheism the fine-tuning evidence shows atheism is way more implausible than we might have thoughtis way more implausible than we might have thought, , although it does not although it does not directlydirectly address the prior doubts address the prior doubts we might have had about how a being like God could we might have had about how a being like God could exist. Nonetheless, exist. Nonetheless, by significantly decreasing the by significantly decreasing the plausibility of the alternative non-theistic hypotheses, plausibility of the alternative non-theistic hypotheses, it gives us good reason to believe in Godit gives us good reason to believe in God..

[End][End]

Intelligent Design?Intelligent Design?Two Key DifferencesTwo Key Differences

1.1. The-Fine Tuning argument concerns the The-Fine Tuning argument concerns the cosmic conditions necessary for evolution cosmic conditions necessary for evolution to even take place. Thus, this argument is to even take place. Thus, this argument is perfectly compatible with belief in perfectly compatible with belief in evolution. evolution.

2.2. There is There is nono claim being made that theism claim being made that theism is a is a scientific hypothesisscientific hypothesis. Rather, it is a . Rather, it is a metaphysical hypothesis. The point brings metaphysical hypothesis. The point brings up the “God of the Gaps” issue . . . up the “God of the Gaps” issue . . .

EndEnd

God of Gaps Issue:God of Gaps Issue:

Is the God explanation being invoked as a Is the God explanation being invoked as a substitute for a scientific explanation? No! substitute for a scientific explanation? No! Scientific explanations always invoke laws Scientific explanations always invoke laws and initial conditions, but they cannot and initial conditions, but they cannot themselves explain why the most themselves explain why the most fundamental laws and initial conditions are fundamental laws and initial conditions are the way they are. the way they are. One must either accept One must either accept these as a brute fact or offer another non-these as a brute fact or offer another non-scientific kind of explanationscientific kind of explanation —e.g., either —e.g., either a personal explanation in terms of purpose a personal explanation in terms of purpose or some metaphysical principle. . . . or some metaphysical principle. . . .

Clock-Universe AnalogyClock-Universe AnalogyTo understand this, think of the universe as To understand this, think of the universe as analogous to a clock, and scientists as analogous analogous to a clock, and scientists as analogous to little beings living in the clock who uncover the to little beings living in the clock who uncover the laws and mechanisms by which the clock works. laws and mechanisms by which the clock works. They in turn explain events in the clock by They in turn explain events in the clock by appealing to its laws and mechanisms. This itself, appealing to its laws and mechanisms. This itself, however, can never explain however, can never explain whywhy the clock exists or the clock exists or is constructed in the way that it is. To explain this, is constructed in the way that it is. To explain this, one would ordinarily appeal to purpose – e.g., one would ordinarily appeal to purpose – e.g., some personal being constructed the clock this some personal being constructed the clock this

way to tell timeway to tell time.. God Explanation: Why does the clock exist? Why is it constructed in the way it is?

Scientific Explanation: How does the clock work? What mechanism caused the alarm to go off? Etc.

Summary of God of Gaps Summary of God of Gaps IssueIssue

A scientific explanation, therefore, A scientific explanation, therefore, provides the provides the HOWHOW of the universe’s of the universe’s operation, whereas the God operation, whereas the God explanation purports to explain the explanation purports to explain the WHYWHY there is a universe with these there is a universe with these sorts of laws.sorts of laws.The The ““God explanationGod explanation,” therefore, ,” therefore, operates at another operates at another levellevel than the than the scientific explanationscientific explanation, and thus , and thus should should notnot be considered a be considered a competitor.competitor.End End

THEORY Of EVERYTHING THEORY Of EVERYTHING OBJECTION:OBJECTION:

OBJECTION: OBJECTION: How do you know that physicists will How do you know that physicists will not develop a new theory, such as the so-called not develop a new theory, such as the so-called Theory of Everything, that will explain why our Theory of Everything, that will explain why our universe has the constants it does?universe has the constants it does?

RESPONSE: As astrophysicists Bernard Carr and As astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees note, “even if all apparently Martin Rees note, “even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained [in anthropic coincidences could be explained [in terms of some theory of everything], it would still terms of some theory of everything], it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life” (Carr and Rees 1979: 612). propitious for life” (Carr and Rees 1979: 612).

[End] [End]

OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OBJECTIONOBJECTION

Objection Stated: Objection Stated: Doesn’t your argument assume that Doesn’t your argument assume that carbon based life is the only form of life there could carbon based life is the only form of life there could be?be?

Response: Response: No. It simply assumes that life requires No. It simply assumes that life requires stable, reproducible complexity. A universe without stable, reproducible complexity. A universe without atoms, for instance, would not even have this. atoms, for instance, would not even have this. Besides, it is the existence of Besides, it is the existence of conscious, embodied conscious, embodied agents, agents, not mere life, that points to theistic design, not mere life, that points to theistic design, since we no reason to think that God merely values since we no reason to think that God merely values non-sentient life, such as viruses or bacteria.non-sentient life, such as viruses or bacteria.

[End][End]

OTHER LIFE-PERMITTING LAWS OTHER LIFE-PERMITTING LAWS OBJECTIONOBJECTION

Small red circle in center is life-permitting range for laws, etc., of the universe. The surrounding blue area is the area for which we can determine whether laws, etc., are life-permitting. I call the blue area the epistemically illuminated region. The fact that dart hits the life-permitting “bulls-eye” in the blue area is evidence for the “aiming” hypothesis, even if we do not know how many bulls-eyes are in the dark area. (The epistemically illuminated region also provides the “comparison range” for the constants.) [END]

SCALE OBJECTIONSCALE OBJECTION

Small red circle in center represents the life-permitting values for the constants of physics. Surrounding green area is the area for which we can determine whether the constants are life permitting. I call this the epistemically illuminated epistemically illuminated region. The fact that the dart hits the life-permitting “bulls-eye” in the green area is evidence for the “aiming” hypothesis, even if we do not know how many bulls-eyes are in the dark area. This epistemically illuminated region provides the “comparison range” for the constants: what is significant is the fact that the region of life-permitting values (red) is small compared to the region we can “see” ((greengreen). ). End.

NO PROBABILITY NO PROBABILITY OBJECTIONOBJECTION

Remember, in the fine-tuning argument the relevant Remember, in the fine-tuning argument the relevant sort of probability is sort of probability is epistemic probability (epistemic probability (that is, that is, degree of surprise), NOT statistical or theoretical degree of surprise), NOT statistical or theoretical probability. This sort of probability is used all the time probability. This sort of probability is used all the time in scientific confirmation. Example:in scientific confirmation. Example:

““The strongest evidence for evolution [understood as The strongest evidence for evolution [understood as the thesis of common ancestry] is the concurrence of so the thesis of common ancestry] is the concurrence of so many many independent probabilities.independent probabilities. That such different That such different disciplines as biochemistry and comparative anatomy, disciplines as biochemistry and comparative anatomy, genetics and biogeography should all point toward the genetics and biogeography should all point toward the same conclusion is very difficult to attribute to same conclusion is very difficult to attribute to coincidence" coincidence" (Edward Dodson, 1984, p. 68).(Edward Dodson, 1984, p. 68).

The argument here is one based on The argument here is one based on improbability improbability and and coincidence, coincidence, but since evolution only occurred once, it but since evolution only occurred once, it is clearly NOT statistical or even theoretical probability. is clearly NOT statistical or even theoretical probability. [End] [End]

WHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUT WHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUT EMBODIED MORAL EMBODIED MORAL

AGENTS?AGENTS?Embodied moral agents can realize Embodied moral agents can realize certain goods that a reality without certain goods that a reality without such agents could not realize: for such agents could not realize: for example, being vulnerable to one example, being vulnerable to one another. Thus, God would have a another. Thus, God would have a reason to create a reality that reason to create a reality that contained embodied moral agents, contained embodied moral agents, which would require a system of which would require a system of laws – that is, a universe. [End]laws – that is, a universe. [End]

Higher-Level Types of Fine-Higher-Level Types of Fine-tuningtuning

Example:Example: ““Carbon is so uniquely fit for its Carbon is so uniquely fit for its

biological role, its various compounds so biological role, its various compounds so vital to the existence of life, that we may vital to the existence of life, that we may repeat the aphorism, ‘If carbon did not repeat the aphorism, ‘If carbon did not exist, it would have to be invented.’” exist, it would have to be invented.’” (Michael Denton, (Michael Denton, Nature’s DestinyNature’s Destiny, p. , p. 116).116).

Fitness of CarbonFitness of Carbon

Compare simplicity of molecule without carbon(e.g., water) with complexity of organic compounds:

Carbon is the Backbone Carbon is the Backbone of DNA of DNA

[End][End]

DNA

IS MULTIVERSE IS MULTIVERSE COMPATIBLE WITH COMPATIBLE WITH

THEISMTHEISMI say yes . . . . It fits in which infinite I say yes . . . . It fits in which infinite creativity of God and the historical creativity of God and the historical trend of science. Humans continue trend of science. Humans continue to find that the universe is larger to find that the universe is larger than we previously thought. than we previously thought.

earth

Aristotle’s Conception of Universe (500 BC – 1400 AD).

Modern Day Universe: more than 300 billion galaxies with 300 billion stars per galaxy.

Hubble Deep Field View of a pinhead size portion of the universe. Each speck is a galaxy.

INFLATIONARY-SUPERSTRING INFLATIONARY-SUPERSTRING MULTIVERSE TEST CASEMULTIVERSE TEST CASE

The inflationary/superstring many-universe The inflationary/superstring many-universe generator can only produce life-sustaining generator can only produce life-sustaining universes because it has the following four universes because it has the following four “components” or “mechanisms:”:“components” or “mechanisms:”:

i) A Mechanism To Supply The Energy Needed i) A Mechanism To Supply The Energy Needed For The Bubble Universes. [Actual For The Bubble Universes. [Actual Mechanism: Mechanism: InflatonInflaton Field.] Field.]

ii) A Mechanism To Form The Bubbles. [Actual ii) A Mechanism To Form The Bubbles. [Actual Mechanism: Mechanism: Einstein’s Equation + Inflation Einstein’s Equation + Inflation FieldField]]

Mechanisms--ContinuedMechanisms--Continued

iii) A Mechanism To Convert The Energy iii) A Mechanism To Convert The Energy Of Inflaton Field To The Normal Of Inflaton Field To The Normal Mass/Energy We Find In Our Universe. Mass/Energy We Find In Our Universe. [Actual Mechanism: [Actual Mechanism: E = mcE = mc2 + 2 + coupling coupling between inflaton field and matter fieldsbetween inflaton field and matter fields.].]

iv) A Mechanism That Allows Enough iv) A Mechanism That Allows Enough

Variation In Constants Of Physics Variation In Constants Of Physics Among Universes. [Among Universes. [Superstring TheorySuperstring Theory.].]

In Addition:In Addition: The The background laws background laws of inflationary of inflationary

cosmology/superstring theory must be right cosmology/superstring theory must be right in order for even one of the universes that in order for even one of the universes that are produced to be (intelligent) life are produced to be (intelligent) life sustaining. sustaining.

Examples: Examples: As we saw before, without As we saw before, without gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong nuclear force, there would be no organisms nuclear force, there would be no organisms with enough stable complexity to count as a with enough stable complexity to count as a life form. Without the principle of life form. Without the principle of quantization or the Pauli-Exclusion quantization or the Pauli-Exclusion principle, no complex chemistry. [End]principle, no complex chemistry. [End]

Extra SlidesExtra Slides

REALLY BIG PICTURE: REALLY BIG PICTURE: BEAUTY AND BEAUTY AND

DISCOVERABILITYDISCOVERABILITY

The Really Big PictureThe Really Big PictureFeatures of Universe that Suggest Features of Universe that Suggest

Divine Design:Divine Design:

1. The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos for 1. The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos for LifeLife. . 2. “Fine-tuning” for 2. “Fine-tuning” for Beauty and Elegance Beauty and Elegance

of the Laws and Underlying Principles of the Laws and Underlying Principles of Nature. of Nature.

3. The 3. The Intelligibility and Discoverability Intelligibility and Discoverability of of the Laws of Nature. the Laws of Nature.

4. The Existence of 4. The Existence of ConsciousnessConsciousness..

Let’s illustrate (2) and (3) above with a Let’s illustrate (2) and (3) above with a few quotations:few quotations:

Beauty of LawsBeauty of LawsSteven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics and a Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics and a convinced atheist: convinced atheist:

““It is precisely in the application of pure It is precisely in the application of pure mathematics to physics that the effectiveness of mathematics to physics that the effectiveness of aesthetic judgments is most amazing…. aesthetic judgments is most amazing…. mathematical structures that confessedly are mathematical structures that confessedly are developed by mathematicians because they seek a developed by mathematicians because they seek a sort of beauty are often found later to be sort of beauty are often found later to be extraordinarily valuable by physicists.” (Dreams of extraordinarily valuable by physicists.” (Dreams of a Final Theory 1992, p. 153).a Final Theory 1992, p. 153).

Later Weinberg says, Later Weinberg says,

““I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary” (p. 250).beautiful than strictly necessary” (p. 250).

Intelligibility and Intelligibility and DiscoverabilityDiscoverability

Albert Einstein on Albert Einstein on IntelligibilityIntelligibility: : ““The most unintelligible thing about the The most unintelligible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible at all.”universe is that it is intelligible at all.”

Eugene Wigner, a major founder of Eugene Wigner, a major founder of Quantum Mechanics on Quantum Mechanics on discoverabilitydiscoverability: :

Wrote Major Essay: “The Unreasonable Wrote Major Essay: “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences.”Physical Sciences.”

Divine Creation

Cumulative Case Cumulative Case ArgumentArgument

Fine-Tuning for life

Laws Fine-Tuned for Beauty/Elegance

Intelligibility and Discoverabilityof Universe at Fundamental Level

Existence ofConsciousness

Case for Divine Creation Compared to Case for Divine Creation Compared to Case for Common AncestryCase for Common Ancestry

As biologists and geneticist Edward Dodson summarizes the case for evolution understood as common ancestry: “All [pieces of evidence] concur in suggesting evolution with varying degrees of cogency, but most can be explained on other bases . . . . The strongest evidence for evolution is the concurrence of so many independent probabilities. That such different disciplines as biochemistry and comparative anatomy, genetics and biogeography should all point toward the same conclusion is very difficult to attribute to coincidence.”

Argument for divine creation is similar to this. Argument for divine creation is similar to this. [End]

LINKED CONSTANT OBJECTION

According to Richard Dawkins, “physicists have come up with other explanations [of the fine-tuning]. One of them is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that that they are locked in as the circumference and diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill.” (Time, “God versus Science,” Nov. 5, 2006).

As I will now show, Dawkins argument fails since it does not distinguish between cases in which two parameters are linked by mathematical necessity from those that are linked by physical laws:

Bolt ExampleSuppose one were told that the radius of a bolt had to be between 4 and 5 millimeters, with the possible ranges that the factory could produce being 0 to 10 millimeters. So, one might conclude, its radius had to be fine-tuned to 1/10. Now, suppose someone else told one that the circumference had to be tuned to 4π - 5π millimeters, with a factory-possible range of 0 to 10π millimeters; this would yield a 1/10 fine-tuning for the circumference. Not realizing that the radius and circumference are related by mathematical necessity, one might multiply the two fine-tunings together, resulting in 1/100 for the total fine-tuning. This is illustrated by next slide:

Radius in millimeters

One’s Mistaken Representation: Green region represents mistaken requirements for bolt if circumference and radius are truly independent. Blue + green region represents all possible values one mistakenly thinks that the circumference and radius could have. The ratio of the green region to the entire blue + green region is 1/100.

Radius

Correct Analysis: Since of mathematical necessity the circumference is π times the radius (C = πR), the only jointly possible values for C and R are on the blue-green line, with everything else [in red] being impossible. Since the fine-tuning is the ratio of the life-permitting values [green part of line in small square region] to the possible values [entire line], the fine-tuning is actually only 1/10.

C1

Consider a case of two constants linked by a physical law given by the straight line, with the same fine-tuning (1/10) for both C1 and C2 as for the circumference and radius in the bolt example.

Constants Linked by a Law of Nature

C1

Unlike the case of the circumference and radius of a circle, there are many mathematically possible laws linking C2 and C1, as represented by the dashed lines. Most alternative laws will not go through the green area, since it is relatively small.

C1Given the actual physical law linking C2 with C1 [solid line], there is only a 1/10 fine tuning as before [length of green part of line divided by entire length of line]. Nonetheless, unlike the radius and circumference example, there is an additional fine-tuning of the law itself – namely, that the law is such that it goes through the green area. So, there are still two independent cases of fine-tuning: that of the law being such that it goes through the green area, and that given this, the joint value of <C1,C2> falls within the green life-permitting area instead of somewhere else on the line.

Conclusion

Because he did not properly distinguish between parameters linked by mathematical necessity and those linked by contingent laws of nature, Dawkins’ analogy and corresponding argument fails.

END

List of List of Conditions/Constraints for Conditions/Constraints for

LifeLifeThe following slides present a running list of all the The following slides present a running list of all the

conditions that we have solid lines of physical conditions that we have solid lines of physical reasoning to think are are necessary for the kind of reasoning to think are are necessary for the kind of complexity necessary for embodied conscious agents. complexity necessary for embodied conscious agents. The list is divided into the following types of The list is divided into the following types of conditions/constraints:conditions/constraints:

1. Building blocks of material – e.g., atoms that can take 1. Building blocks of material – e.g., atoms that can take part in complex chemistry.part in complex chemistry.

2. Stability of matter2. Stability of matter3a. Energy Sources for that life and livable locations – 3a. Energy Sources for that life and livable locations –

e.g., general conditions for life-supporting stars and e.g., general conditions for life-supporting stars and planets.planets.

3b. Constraints arising from big bang for star formation3b. Constraints arising from big bang for star formation3c. Life-permitting constraints on nuclear fusion in 3c. Life-permitting constraints on nuclear fusion in

stars.stars.

List of List of Conditions/Constraints -- Conditions/Constraints --

ContinuedContinuedImaginatively, when looking at the following Imaginatively, when looking at the following

conditions/constraints, it is helpful to think of some conditions/constraints, it is helpful to think of some super-being such as Star Trek’s Next Generation’s super-being such as Star Trek’s Next Generation’s Q trying to constructing a life-permitting universe Q trying to constructing a life-permitting universe by first creating a law or some other by first creating a law or some other “mechanism”/”adjustment” to institute that “mechanism”/”adjustment” to institute that condition (e.g., C1 below), and then realizing that a condition (e.g., C1 below), and then realizing that a second condition is needed (e.g., C2) and second condition is needed (e.g., C2) and instituting something to make that condition come instituting something to make that condition come about, and so forth. Eventually, the being is able about, and so forth. Eventually, the being is able to construct a life-permitting universe after to construct a life-permitting universe after instituting the right set of laws, mechanisms, and instituting the right set of laws, mechanisms, and adjustments to satisfy the 24 separate adjustments to satisfy the 24 separate conditions/constraints listed below.conditions/constraints listed below.The super-being begins with building an atom:The super-being begins with building an atom:

Building Blocks for Material Building Blocks for Material Complexity: The AtomComplexity: The Atom

C1: The existence of matter instead of pure C1: The existence of matter instead of pure energy: Matter/Anti-matter Asymmetry = 50%.energy: Matter/Anti-matter Asymmetry = 50%.

C2: Existence of basic building blocks for nucleus. C2: Existence of basic building blocks for nucleus. [E.g., protons and neutrons in our world]. 50%[E.g., protons and neutrons in our world]. 50%

C3: Existence of something that plays role of C3: Existence of something that plays role of electron: 50%. [E.g., A merely negatively electron: 50%. [E.g., A merely negatively charged particle is not sufficient – for instance, charged particle is not sufficient – for instance, if the electron were as heavy as the muon -- the if the electron were as heavy as the muon -- the heavy sister of the electron which is about 400 heavy sister of the electron which is about 400 times as heavy as the electron – stable atoms times as heavy as the electron – stable atoms could not exist.] could not exist.]

C4. Some force that plays the role of the electric C4. Some force that plays the role of the electric force to hold electrons in orbit. force to hold electrons in orbit. [Electromagnetic force]. 50%[Electromagnetic force]. 50%

Building an Atom-- Building an Atom-- ContinuedContinued

C5: Existence of some force that plays the role of C5: Existence of some force that plays the role of holding protons and neutrons together [Strong holding protons and neutrons together [Strong Nuclear Force]: 50%Nuclear Force]: 50%

C6: The force in C5 being short range, instead of long C6: The force in C5 being short range, instead of long range like gravity and electromagnetism, otherwise range like gravity and electromagnetism, otherwise nuclei of distant atoms would be pulled together. nuclei of distant atoms would be pulled together. 50%.50%.

C7: The ratio of the strong nuclear force to the C7: The ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagnetic force being sufficiently strong to electromagnetic force being sufficiently strong to hold nuclei together. 1/2hold nuclei together. 1/2

C8: A principle to keep electrons in fixed orbits, C8: A principle to keep electrons in fixed orbits, instead of falling into the nucleus. [Principle of instead of falling into the nucleus. [Principle of Quantization]: 50%Quantization]: 50%

C9: A principle that keeps all the electrons from piling C9: A principle that keeps all the electrons from piling into the first orbital [Pauli-Exclusion Principle]: 50%into the first orbital [Pauli-Exclusion Principle]: 50%

Stability of MatterStability of MatterC10: A principle that keeps the charges C10: A principle that keeps the charges

in matter from rearranging in matter from rearranging themselves to form a super-dense themselves to form a super-dense mass [Pauli-Exclusion Principle]:50%mass [Pauli-Exclusion Principle]:50%

C11: A principle that keeps protons and C11: A principle that keeps protons and neutrons from decaying into photons neutrons from decaying into photons [Baryon Conservation]: 50%[Baryon Conservation]: 50%

C12: A principle that keeps electrons C12: A principle that keeps electrons from decaying into photons/neutrinos from decaying into photons/neutrinos [Conservation of Electric Charge]: [Conservation of Electric Charge]: 50%50%

Existence of “Embodied Existence of “Embodied Conscious Agents” Conscious Agents”

Supporting Stars and Supporting Stars and PlanetsPlanetsC13: Existence of universal attractive force between C13: Existence of universal attractive force between

material bodies (instead of, for instance, a material bodies (instead of, for instance, a universal repulsive force or no force acting universal repulsive force or no force acting between all masses); without this, no stars – and between all masses); without this, no stars – and hence no energy sources for life to evolve – and no hence no energy sources for life to evolve – and no planets or other significantly large solid objects to planets or other significantly large solid objects to support embodied conscious beings. [Gravity plays support embodied conscious beings. [Gravity plays this role]. = 50%this role]. = 50%

C14: Planetary Orbit Stability Requirement: universal C14: Planetary Orbit Stability Requirement: universal attractive that force does not fall 1/rattractive that force does not fall 1/r33 or faster: or faster: 50%. [Force of gravity falls off as 1/r50%. [Force of gravity falls off as 1/r22 ]: 50% ]: 50%

C15: Some means of transmitting energy of stars to C15: Some means of transmitting energy of stars to planets so life can evolve [Electromagnetic force planets so life can evolve [Electromagnetic force via electromagnetic radiation plays this role]: 50%via electromagnetic radiation plays this role]: 50%

Stars and Planets--Stars and Planets--ContinuedContinued

C16a*: Strength of gravity (relative to C16a*: Strength of gravity (relative to strength of materials) for evolution of strength of materials) for evolution of beings with sufficiently large brains to beings with sufficiently large brains to be conscious agents: 1/10be conscious agents: 1/103131 of range of of range of force strengths in nature. force strengths in nature. [Note: Strength of [Note: Strength of materials determined by strength of electromagnetic force and mass materials determined by strength of electromagnetic force and mass of electron via the Pauli-exclusion principle.]of electron via the Pauli-exclusion principle.]

C16b*: fine-tuning of strength of gravity C16b*: fine-tuning of strength of gravity for long, stable stars that can support for long, stable stars that can support life: 1/10life: 1/103737 of range of force strengths in of range of force strengths in nature. nature.

Conditions Arising from Big Conditions Arising from Big Bang For Star FormationBang For Star Formation

(C17) Density Fluctuations coming out of big bang not being (C17) Density Fluctuations coming out of big bang not being too large (otherwise mostly black holes), but large enough too large (otherwise mostly black holes), but large enough for galaxies and stars to condense out. [Degree of Fine-for galaxies and stars to condense out. [Degree of Fine-tuning cannot be estimated because of lack of well-defined tuning cannot be estimated because of lack of well-defined comparison range.] comparison range.]

(C18) Curvature of space. Must be fine-tuned to 1/10(C18) Curvature of space. Must be fine-tuned to 1/1060 60 of of zero; Otherwise, either the universe does not last long zero; Otherwise, either the universe does not last long enough for stars to form or space expands too rapidly for enough for stars to form or space expands too rapidly for stars to form. [Possibly explained by inflationary stars to form. [Possibly explained by inflationary cosmology or a law that requires it to be zero. Thus, cosmology or a law that requires it to be zero. Thus, conservative estimate: 50%].conservative estimate: 50%].

(C19) Photon/Baryon Ratio: 50%(C19) Photon/Baryon Ratio: 50%(C20) Low Entropy: Enormous fine-tuning required. [Might (C20) Low Entropy: Enormous fine-tuning required. [Might

be explicable by new law setting the dis-uniformity in the be explicable by new law setting the dis-uniformity in the gravitational field to zero at the beginning; some claim it gravitational field to zero at the beginning; some claim it can be explained by inflationary cosmology; thus a can be explained by inflationary cosmology; thus a conservative estimate is 50%conservative estimate is 50%

(C21)* The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant/dark (C21)* The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: 1/10energy: 1/105050 [No plausible way of accounting for this [No plausible way of accounting for this except possibly by multiverse] hypothesis.except possibly by multiverse] hypothesis.

Conditions Nuclear Fusion Conditions Nuclear Fusion for Life Optimality: for Life Optimality:

(C22)* The fine-tuning of the weak force: 1/10(C22)* The fine-tuning of the weak force: 1/1099 of of range of force strengths. [If weak force is too range of force strengths. [If weak force is too small, ratio of neutrons to protons small, ratio of neutrons to protons 1, and Big 1, and Big Bang produces almost all helium 4: little or no Bang produces almost all helium 4: little or no water and stars would be unstable helium burning water and stars would be unstable helium burning stars.] stars.]

(C23)* The neutron-proton mass difference: 1/70 of (C23)* The neutron-proton mass difference: 1/70 of neutron/proton mass. If mass difference is too neutron/proton mass. If mass difference is too large, the critical first step in nuclear fusion in large, the critical first step in nuclear fusion in stars ( p + p stars ( p + p p-d nuclei [deuterium]) is no longer p-d nuclei [deuterium]) is no longer possible.possible.

(C24). Ratio of Strong to Electromagnetic force must (C24). Ratio of Strong to Electromagnetic force must be right for stars to produce a life-optimal be right for stars to produce a life-optimal amount/proportion of carbon and oxygen: 50%. amount/proportion of carbon and oxygen: 50%. [Often this is claimed to be much more fine-tuned [Often this is claimed to be much more fine-tuned than 50%, but such estimates are based on flawed than 50%, but such estimates are based on flawed calculations.]calculations.]

Other Possible CasesOther Possible Cases

A. Existence of weak force?A. Existence of weak force?

B. Fine-tuning of weak scale?B. Fine-tuning of weak scale?

Definite Quantitative Definite Quantitative CasesCases

The literature has almost entirely focused on fine-The literature has almost entirely focused on fine-tuning of the parameters/constants of physics. tuning of the parameters/constants of physics. Below is a summary of the cases listed above Below is a summary of the cases listed above (denoted by a *) that I think are both well-(denoted by a *) that I think are both well-established and for which there is no plausible established and for which there is no plausible natural, non-ad-hoc explanation in sight:natural, non-ad-hoc explanation in sight:

1. The fine-tuning of the weak force: 1/101. The fine-tuning of the weak force: 1/1099 of range of range of force strengths.of force strengths.

2. The neutron-proton mass difference: 1/70 of the 2. The neutron-proton mass difference: 1/70 of the neutron/proton mass.neutron/proton mass.

3. Fine-tuning of gravity: at least 1/103. Fine-tuning of gravity: at least 1/103131 of range of of range of force strengths.force strengths.

4. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant/dark 4. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant/dark energy: at least 1/10energy: at least 1/1050 50 of range of values allowed of range of values allowed by model.by model.

How Surprised Should How Surprised Should we be?we be?

Except for the definitely quantitative cases Except for the definitely quantitative cases (e.g., the cosmological constant/dark energy), I (e.g., the cosmological constant/dark energy), I put down 50% as an estimate of the epistemic put down 50% as an estimate of the epistemic probability for a certain condition/constraint probability for a certain condition/constraint being met. (Epistemic probability can be being met. (Epistemic probability can be thought of as a way of measuring the rational thought of as a way of measuring the rational degree of surprise, with the lower the epistemic degree of surprise, with the lower the epistemic probability, the more surprised one should be.) probability, the more surprised one should be.)

50% is a very conservative estimate, since 50% is a very conservative estimate, since normally we take a specific condition/constraint normally we take a specific condition/constraint being met as being much less probable, since being met as being much less probable, since there seems to be way more ways for a there seems to be way more ways for a condition not to be met. condition not to be met. [Analogy: . ..][Analogy: . ..]

How Surprised--How Surprised--ContinuedContinued

Although there is some overlap, most Although there is some overlap, most conditions/constraints listed above are largely conditions/constraints listed above are largely independent. So, we can multiple the independent. So, we can multiple the epistemic probabilities together to estimate epistemic probabilities together to estimate the total amount of surprise. Even neglecting the total amount of surprise. Even neglecting the quantitative cases, we obtain:the quantitative cases, we obtain:

1/21/224 24 , ,

which is about one in 16 million. Still very which is about one in 16 million. Still very impressive.impressive.

END END

Dimensionless ConstantsDimensionless Constants

First note that the fine-tuning of the First note that the fine-tuning of the constants is always defined in a constants is always defined in a dimensionless way, since it is the ratio of dimensionless way, since it is the ratio of the life-permitting range to the comparison the life-permitting range to the comparison range. [Examples of fine-tuning of gravity range. [Examples of fine-tuning of gravity and of cosmological constant.] So, this is and of cosmological constant.] So, this is never an issue. But a related issue is that never an issue. But a related issue is that when we speak of the fine-tuning of a when we speak of the fine-tuning of a constant, we are always holding some other constant, we are always holding some other constants the same. To avoid duplicating constants the same. To avoid duplicating cases of fine-tuning, we must be clear on cases of fine-tuning, we must be clear on what else is being held the same.what else is being held the same.

Dimensionless Constants – Dimensionless Constants – Planck ScalePlanck Scale

Is it legitimate to vary the strength of gravity? Isn’t it always set to Is it legitimate to vary the strength of gravity? Isn’t it always set to 1 when one uses Planck units: that is, units defined by setting c = 1 when one uses Planck units: that is, units defined by setting c = 1, h =1, and G =1? 1, h =1, and G =1?

Reply: two points: Reply: two points: (1)(1) Plank units are optional. For example, one can set c = 1, h =1, Plank units are optional. For example, one can set c = 1, h =1,

and then determine the scale by setting some other physical and then determine the scale by setting some other physical constant – e.g., the mass of the muon – equal to 1. So, what this constant – e.g., the mass of the muon – equal to 1. So, what this objection only shows that three constants in the Standard Model objection only shows that three constants in the Standard Model of physics are taken up in determining units.of physics are taken up in determining units.

(2)(2) If one does use Planck units, varying G when not using Planck If one does use Planck units, varying G when not using Planck units is equivalent to varying the masses in Planck units, along units is equivalent to varying the masses in Planck units, along with some other changes – such as the fundamental unit of with some other changes – such as the fundamental unit of charge in Planck units. For instance, increasing G by a factor of charge in Planck units. For instance, increasing G by a factor of C becomes equivalent to increasing all masses – such as that of C becomes equivalent to increasing all masses – such as that of the proton -- by the same factor, while increasing the the proton -- by the same factor, while increasing the fundamental unit of charge by square root of C.fundamental unit of charge by square root of C.

(3)(3) ENDEND

THE ENDTHE END

Observer Selection Observer Selection PrinciplePrinciple

Observer Selection Principle:Observer Selection Principle: In any In any universe in which observers evolve, they universe in which observers evolve, they will observe their universe to be life-will observe their universe to be life-permitting. Consequently, given the permitting. Consequently, given the multiverse hypothesis and the observer multiverse hypothesis and the observer selection principle, iselection principle, it is not t is not improbable that an observer-improbable that an observer-permitting universe exists, and that permitting universe exists, and that the observers in such a universe the observers in such a universe observe it to be life-permitting.observe it to be life-permitting.

Response 1Response 1

Objection is a Objection is a Red HerringRed Herring: Only things with : Only things with organized complexity, such as a watch, need organized complexity, such as a watch, need design. Thus this objection only works against design. Thus this objection only works against an anthropomorphic conception of God, in an anthropomorphic conception of God, in which God is like a super human being. The which God is like a super human being. The God of traditional theology, both East and God of traditional theology, both East and West, has always been conceived as a being West, has always been conceived as a being with minimal internal complexity, thus with minimal internal complexity, thus obviating any need for design. obviating any need for design. This objection, This objection, therefore, begs the question against theism therefore, begs the question against theism by assuming what traditional theism has by assuming what traditional theism has always denied – that God has significant always denied – that God has significant internal complexity.internal complexity.

Response 2Response 2

This objection only applies to arguments for This objection only applies to arguments for the existence of God that claim that because the existence of God that claim that because of its organized complexity, the universe of its organized complexity, the universe needs a designer to explain its structure. My needs a designer to explain its structure. My main argument never claims this. Rather, it main argument never claims this. Rather, it only claims that a life-permitting universe only claims that a life-permitting universe provides strong evidence in favor of theism provides strong evidence in favor of theism over the brute fact hypothesis. over the brute fact hypothesis. The way I The way I frame the argument completely circumvents frame the argument completely circumvents this objection.this objection.

Response #3: To Response #3: To CompleteComplete

Another response is to note that the Another response is to note that the criterion of the explaining hypothesis – criterion of the explaining hypothesis – God – does not transfer the problem of God – does not transfer the problem of coincidence or fine-tuning up one level, coincidence or fine-tuning up one level, to God’s own self. If God had a brain, or to God’s own self. If God had a brain, or even a finite mind, then the same fine-even a finite mind, then the same fine-tuning problem would confront the tuning problem would confront the existence of God’s brain: e.g., why would existence of God’s brain: e.g., why would the matter composing God’s brain be the matter composing God’s brain be organized organized

Remember ArgumentRemember Argument

Life-permitting Universe

Not Surprising Under theism:

Very Surprising Under Brute Fact Hypothesis:

Comments on Two Comments on Two ResponsesResponses

For Response 1:For Response 1: To deal with response (1), To deal with response (1), atheist would have to shift their critique to atheist would have to shift their critique to the claim that the God of traditional the claim that the God of traditional theism is either an incoherent conception, theism is either an incoherent conception, or at least that we have good reasons to or at least that we have good reasons to think that any intelligent agent must have think that any intelligent agent must have great internal complexity. This shifts the great internal complexity. This shifts the debate to a different issue, that of debate to a different issue, that of questioning the coherence or plausibility questioning the coherence or plausibility of the God of traditional theism.of the God of traditional theism.

Comment on Response Comment on Response #2:#2:

Couldn’t one apply the surprise principle to God, Couldn’t one apply the surprise principle to God, and claim that God’s existence is surprising in the and claim that God’s existence is surprising in the same way that the universe’s is? Even if one same way that the universe’s is? Even if one could do this (which almost all traditional theists could do this (which almost all traditional theists would deny), in order to apply the surprise would deny), in order to apply the surprise principle at a higher level one would have to have principle at a higher level one would have to have an available, not an available, not ad hocad hoc hypothesis that explained hypothesis that explained God’s existence. No such hypothesis is available.God’s existence. No such hypothesis is available.

[As mentioned in a small note at the bottom when [As mentioned in a small note at the bottom when we introduced the we introduced the surprise principlesurprise principle: To avoid : To avoid certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that certain counterexamples, the hypothesis H1 that is being confirmed should be restricted to those is being confirmed should be restricted to those that have either been seriously advocated prior to that have either been seriously advocated prior to E or for which we have independent motivation.]E or for which we have independent motivation.]

WHO DESIGNED GOD WHO DESIGNED GOD OBJECTION 2OBJECTION 2

State objection:State objection: Picture of Lincoln and creation and Picture of Lincoln and creation and

saying which is more plausiblesaying which is more plausible

Linde and SusskindLinde and Susskind

material to add/modify 1. work on multiverse hypothesis slides. 2. response #3 to who designed god....

Documents

cosmos slide

chance slide

existence of principle

principle of quantization

existence of god

finetuning design argument

finetuning of laws

exclusion principle