Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? | Episode 107 | Closer To Truth

How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Beware: there is more than one answer lurking here. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Steven Weinberg, David Gross, John Polkinghorne, Robin Collins, and Paul Davies.

Season 1, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
Archive episode. First aired in 2008.

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

Closer to Truth 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.

[hotrodsonulondon]

Getting warmer 🤠💓😉....God bless everyone 🙏.

[Patrick]

A puddle is incredibly "fine tuned" to its hole.

[Techno.love]

Thank you for this amazing series of interviews ❤️ so enlightening and uplifting !

[isnan]

I've never felt more confused and farther from the truth

[PerfectPetProductions]

I'm a Pantheist who believes God is Nature & the Multiverse & that we're a part of God having a conscious experience. Love this series, thank-you.

[Swampzoid]

If there are multiple universes, wouldn't there had to be something fined tuned so that universes could be born in the first place ?

[LearnThaiRapidMethod]

There are only two possible explanations:

1. The cosmological constants that result in the tendency towards life and intelligence and consciousness in the universe can only be what they are because of some deeper physical principle or property of the universe. Not too dissimilar from the accumulation of a pool of water at the bottom of a valley that ends up there because of the fundamental property of valleys and the downward gravitational pull on the water, by the very shape and nature of valleys.

2. There are multiple universes, each with varying and random cosmological constants (or maybe there are boundaries to they kinds of constants that can spring into existence, like integer multiples of smaller values, say). The universe we inhabit happens to be the one (and there may be more than one) that has just the right mix of constant values that produce a universe that behaves the way ours does and which supports the evolution of life, etc.

Same analogy: kind of like many different types of valleys, some convex (which don’t result in the pooling of water at all), some sloping at a steep angle (which means the water runs off and doesn’t pool anywhere), etc. etc.

There might be a way to test whether (2) is a feasible explanation. Model a universe that has different constants and see (theoretically / mathematically) if it can have a life-cycle or sustainable (even if briefly) existence at all. Or is there no combination of cosmological values possible that results in any kind of physical order? If the latter is provable then it would lead one to the likelihood that (1) is the correct explanation.

Update: the notion of a “god” or conscious “creator” is pure nonsense. Firstly, if there were a “god” then it’s certainly nothing at all what religious believers imagine God to be like. It would be entirely uncaring and cruel without any morals. Like identifying hot as good and cold as evil. Secondly, this “god” must exist in some way and have arisen from something, and is possibly conscious and intelligent (to have been able to “decide” what to create and how).

It may be that the “god” in question is some kind of creative force. We are created by our sun, for instance, at a deep atomic level. But we (now) don’t think of the sun as a sentient, interested, caring God with commandments. Granted, there are laws we need to obey in order to survive and thrive. We need the sun for sustenance, and if we “disobey” the sun’s laws, we will suffer or die (of burns or skin cancer or sunstroke).

But, like the sun, any such “god” or cosmic creative force is itself derived from somewhere or something. And so we are back to options 1 or 2.

[tedgrant]

It's amazing that there are exactly three feet to the yard everywhere in the universe.

[spacesciencelab]

This is my argument to fine tuning. If we had a different universe, like, let's say we evolved with silicon instead of carbon; so a drastic world indeed. And the cosmological constants vastly different but good for life. We would more than likely say those are fine tuned aswell. So, my pondering is that the universe isn't fine tuned at all. Isn't it just how it is? We could easily say that many other universes that would be capable of supporting life be fine tuned. Know what I mean? It just so happens that we have those cosmic constants and not ones slightly or vastly different. Either way, we'd most definitely would say that any universe that we would happen to live in be fine tuned.

But is the universe really ever fine tuned? In my view, I don't think it is. How can it be. Outside of earth, the universe is extremely violent and uninhabitable. The only place we know as of now where life is safe is earth, everywhere else is just chaotic. But even on earth it is a struggle. In the past, out ancestors weren't living per say but rather just surviving in extremely harsh conditions. I find it quite odd that a lot of people think that the universe is fine tuned. But of course, I'm up for a change of mind if there is a good rebuttal. I must say that the Anthrophic Principle is extremely strange. It does seem improbable that we have been born into this chaotic universe by against high odds, almost miracle esque.

This channel is awesome it inspired me to make my YouTube channel, to ponder. <3

[makanani]

Because what else would it be??? Epistemologically speaking, without the foundation of physical law then the universe would simply collapse in on itself. A chaotic mess. Take elements for instance. They are just Lie groups maximizing complexity and minimizing time, thus confining energy to a given position in space and time at varying degrees. The principle of least action captures this notion perfectly. This geometric identity is found all throughout nature. Fibonacci Sequence and other such fractals, are all indicative of the same thing. We over complicate such notions which by virtue of occam's razor is entirely redundant. But thats what makes life interesting I guess. As long as such concepts are not proposed by egoist beings who merely want to name each distinction after themselves and claim some accolade or produce complexity for no other reason but reinforce their own dogmatism. It is all relative in the end: time, space, motion and perception! And why shouldn't it be? We are quantum beings. We have a geometry. What makes us unique is our will. That will with which we exert a force upon the universe is our conciousness.

[scienceexplains]

*Robin Collins’ Surprise Principal*
Starting about 19:00, Collins provides a bad analogy. The laws of physics don’t spell an explicit message to a specific person in a specific language.
It is an absurd analogy in that we *skeptics* would be saying that rocks arranged to spell such a long specific message would indicate that his brother probably arranged them. The *theists* would be saying, “God did it.”

Collins and Kuhn ignore that if the vague combination of laws of physics requires a creator, then all the more would that creator with muuuuch narrower parameters require a creator, and an infinite regression of ever-greater creators.
Collins also assumes that we would not be surprised by a creator creating a vague set of laws that would eventually lead to life billions of years in the future. That scenario fails Collins’ own Surprise Principal in two ways:
1. if life is a goal, we should expect it to be created immediately
2. If the creator is omnipotent, it already has a perfect universe in itself. I would not expect it to create anything.

[scienceexplains]

“Tailored so exquisitely…” showing only things we like, ignoring that only an infinitesimal part of the universe is amenable to life.

[PaulHoward]

The universe is a dream. That is the simplest answer that can explain everything.

[thomashartl]

Interesting debates. There is another fin tuning problem: Why are all the Earth's parameters right for higher life to be possible? Distance from the sun, magnetic field, atmosphere, planetary tectonics, a big moon and more fit exactly. Since we know that almost all stars have planetary systems, it is clear that in the huge number of planets, some must have the right preconditions. Similarly, a multiverse also fits the fin tuning of our universe. Postulating a God for this is pointless, because then the question would have to be answered as to who created the preconditions for a God to exist. This does not bring us one step closer to the truth.

[mathew]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*

For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:

1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer


*The Anthropic Principle*

Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:

_birth date of the star-planetary system_
_if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_
_if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_

_flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_
_if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_

_rotation period_
_if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_
_if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_

_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_
_if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_
_if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _
_if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_

_oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_
_if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_
_if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_

_Jupiter’s mass_
_if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_
_if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_

For more evidence:



*What are the chances?*

It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .



It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*


_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_

_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_

_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_

_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_

_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[rvgr]

Love the work you do here on this channel.

[adrianantico]

Also, thanks for producing these videos!

[longcastle]

14:10... _A Universe hospitable to life..._ Maybe. But also indifferent.

[SkepticalZack]

Fine Tuning or as we call it the puddle marvels at how this hole was made perfectly to fit it. 🙄

[PaulHigginbothamSr]

What needs to be considered here is not something like the fine structure constant, but that we are here because of what has been ordained by nature, that we need to fit to.