George Ellis - The Physics of Fine-Tuning

The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed.

George Francis Rayner Ellis is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[hansombrother]

Dear Mr. Ellis. I have listened to many of your interviews. I appreciate your objectivity and that you don’t take any sides on this issue or throw in any bias . ❤❤❤❤

[crabb]

Thank you, this channel is very good!

[ResmithSR]

We exist and we're here. Isn't that miraculous enough?

[SamanthaPyper-slye]

Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:

1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes

Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)

Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.

2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics

Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)

Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.

3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes

Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn, i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)

Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn, i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.

4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes

Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un><Un| (infinitesimal monadic sinks)

Modeling conformational dynamics in molecular machines as nonlinear dissipative processes over pluralistic superpositions |Θ> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.

The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.

Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:

5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter

Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r, p)
Un(r, p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)

Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r, p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.

6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = |<x>|P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)

Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.

7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond

Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)

Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.

8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow

Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.

Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)

Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.

In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.

[EROSNERdesign]

FINALLY!! They are thinking "out of the box"

[SandipChitale]

I think the use of the term fine-tuning (due to ing) is assumed by many to imply fine tuner and that is clearly wrong. Therefore it is less incorrect to use the term fine tuned. Teleonomy not teleology.

[der_kleine_Toni]

The list of prerequisites for life is getting longer and longer. How life came into being is more mysterious than ever.

[jamesruscheinski]

electromagnetic force at fine structure constant enables DNA to make proteins? natural selection (choice?) indicating free will? might electronagnetic force also have to do with cosmological constant expansion of space? and also causation with time greater than space?

[gklgspy]

I have yet to see anyone who is a proponent of 'fine tuning' give compelling evidence that these constants can be other than they are. Or what the constraints on their values are. Until then i am not convinced

[sujok-acupuncture]

One of the most intelligent conversation in the world. 🎉

[simonhibbs]

We have no direct evidence for it, but sure, let’s suppose the ‘constants’ of nature could vary. If we accept that as reasonable speculation, surely it must also be reasonable to suppose that they do in fact vary. That implies a multiverse.

I think it’s incoherent to argue both that we must accept the plausibility of different tuning but arbitrarily also deny the plausibility of varying tuning.

[obiwanduglobi]

Regarding John Lezlies (?) argument: Biology is nothing else but applied physics. Full stop. Therefore, there is no "further argument" for fine tuning imo; but i might be wrong.

[mickmccrory]

We are the slime mold that grows under these conditions.

[michaelbell]

If he's saying the universe was fine-tuned for life, he's exceptionally myopic, js

[stephenzhao]

Thanks be to God❤you two's interesing topics which gives me inspiration. A Chinese ancient idea is all information of cosmics stored in Human body is able to be reflected by human's meditation. 0:24 ... it's interesting is that it's really mainstream cosmologists (yeah) and we're dealing with fine-tuning in that respect you've kind of existed in all these worlds uh so what's your view what's happening here? 0:37 ... 3:46 ... the question is if you shift the fine structure constant or the electron proton ratio will that stuff still work and that's a fascinating area which has hardly been touched and (What type of inclusion what type of range of estimates are there? ) well for the moment what we've been able to do is locate some work on this on well first Hydrogen we've done some calculate hydrogen molecule but then on water and it looks as if you have to make quite a substantial variation in the fine structure constant for water to be significantly affected more probably than the amount you have to change it in orer t alter the nucleos synthesis so it looks maybe as if the physics results will give you a stronger limit on fine-tuning (tighter limit yeah) yeah than the biology but this is a very very tentative conclusion. 4:38 ant it'll require a lot of development to see if that's so 4:42 so what I find interesting is you're now developing the concept of fine tuning in biology and using the from physics but what you're doing is you're suing some of the exact same information in terms of ratios weight ratios between proton and electron or the strength of the electromatic 4:58 GE: we're using the the Shedding equation in detail for molecules (right) 5:05 so um I have to ask you this a good friend of yours in mind at different times John Leslie has proposed that one of the ideas of fine-tuning is that what people do is they look at it in only one area but he says that because fine-tuing will have an effect in radically different areas at the same in physics and now in biology he would say it affects different things that makes the fine-tuning argument stronger. 5:35 GE

[brianlebreton]

If we say that a set of constants in a given universe need to coexist in such a relative manner to allow for matter, life etc, even with the assumption that all possible universes are ‘attempted’ or caused to result in surviving universes, what is the impetus that necessitates the process of universe creation?

[richierich]

So if I get this, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life is on a knife edge…but also the chance of life to form through biology is on a second knife edge…so the whole thing is totally improbable?

[SandipChitale]

This argument is like saying - Water in a puddle thinking - wow! look at that! the shape of the hole in the ground is exactly same shape as my bottom surface. Of course this makes fine-tuning argument a tautology.

[mykrahmaan]

The first two most fundamental steps towards deriving the mechanism how fine-tuning occurs is to :

1) recognize that this earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe that composes bodies in its bowels to then deliver and sustain them on its own surface through plants it develops for that purpose (to deliver the parts as food and air). This is an ongoing process that happens billions of times every single day AND NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED JUST ONCE LONG AGO IN THE PAST as present science suggests.

This inevitably implies that two purpose free assumptions in current science MUST be discarded as totally irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth:

A) The Copernican assumption that the earth goes around the sun, "proved" by observations of motions in the sky without providing any handle as to how to control them for the satisfaction of the needs of beings.

B) The fatalistic Laws of thermodynamics, the first of which is already being violated by QM with assumptios as to existence of VIRTUAL PARTICLES of the FIELDS, although only as exceptions for the convenience of some theories.

When the questions (A and B) themselves are irrelevant for sustenance of life function, no point wasting time, efforts and funds arguing about the accuracy of the answers.

2) Assumptions as to existence of particles must be linked to the life process as serving the single purpose of the perceptions in bodies of beings of SATISFACTION(S) OF THE NEEDS (N) as functions of 6 SENSE PERCEPTIONS (s, including breathing as COMMON sense that link animals and humans to plants) with the common formula for preparing the means in plants:

N = f(s)
= S (si, so, sm, ta, to, te)

Where,

si (sight)
so (sound)
sm (smell)
ta (taste)
to (touch)
te (temper = bresthing)

If we assume 3 common need perceptions of all beings (hunger, fear, pain) and 3 corresponding means for their satisfaction (food, clothes, shelter), then there could exist only 12 types of particles, instead of the 17 (or 25, according to some) of the standard model (of which only one, photon, has any direct relevance whatsoever to perceptions of beings).

Accuracy of the assumptions involved can be verified by deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop plants on its own surface, and how well the so derived model serves to PRACTICALLY SATISFY THE NEEDS OF BEINGS.

Thus obviating the necessity for any special experiments and/or observations as proof.

This obviously implies also interpreting the DIGITS as corresponding to unique set of particles among so assumed, with the 4 basic rules of arithmetic operations (+ - × ÷) as the ONLY LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them, in our minds as corresponding to what happens inside the earth while composing our bodies.

This functional linking of the 3 entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) is the exclusive task for physics (with mathematics as one of its branches) and NOT for biology which starts with CELLS.

Dissecting and analyzing the already delivered entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) won't bring us anywhere closer to deriving this model. On the contrary, it only distracts our attention further and further away from the real task.

[der_kleine_Toni]

The universe is the biggest stage imaginable. It would be strange if there were no spectators