George Ellis - Philosophy of Fine-Tuning

Assuming that the fine-tuning of our universe is real, what would it mean? Scientists, philosophers, even theologians weigh in, spinning the fine-tuning story to support their own worldviews. But philosophers have a higher calling here: they need to apply rigorous thinking and analytical methods to discern deep issues and implications.

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.

[gordonquimby]

Ellis is right on the money when at 3:42 he points out we can't restrict our understanding of reality to just physics. Materialism has a hard time explaining consciousness, art & music, emotions, and our sense of life having meaning. Kuhn admits that in many of these segments.

[MrSarajevofresh]

For anyone with an open mind, both creationists and materialists, this is an eye opener. Pure logic and a textbook example of didactic reasoning.

[tmbv]

The subjects are very interesting. Thank you.

[heresa_notion_]

The biggest news to me was that "string theory" somehow implies the constants don't HAVE to be the way they are, but are more like independent random draws from independent (and very large) ranges, which means there is a level of indeterminism to existence, which is fundamentally mysterious (i.e., the variability of the constants that are "fine tuned"). I was floored by the certainty with which Ellis simply stated this as a property of string theory. I would have liked the discussion to go toward how string theory makes plausible the random occurrence idea, and why it's preferred to (unknown) theories, where correlations between the tuned constants could constrain their values to the interesting ranges. Maybe string theory is wrong (I mean the way I described it, it seems pretty weird), and a discussion of why there are no alternatives would have been more useful.

[mrshankerbillletmein]

Philosophical rejection of the appearance of design is popular among naturalists who often say there is no fine tuning

[keithwalmsley]

The argument for fine-tuning is pretty compelling but at the same time if it wasn't for this perhaps bizarre, even possibly unique set of circumstances that created us we wouldn't be here discussing this would we? Yes it's bizarre and unfathomable but it happened, and if it hadn't I wouldn't be typing this! But then again what is consciousness...oh can someone please give me answers!!! 🤥

[thomashartl]

With a designer hypothesis, you move the fine tuning problem only back to the designer. Why this designer has the capability and the intension to create an univers that allows to create live by an evolution process?

You can solve it by the same way like with the multiverse theorie: There is an infinite number of creators, and our univers can only be made by a creator with exactly this intension. But Occam's razor prefered the multiverse, because otherwise you have to explain this complex creators, and not only the much simpler endless inflation theorie.

[italogiardina]

Quantum mechanics places the observer as interdependent with quantum field qua physics. Decoherence as anarchic or coherence as super symmetry where fine tuning is probability or intentionality.

[flyboyben]

What has Swan Lake got to do with the Einstein gravitational field equation? The Penrose singularity theorem?

[nighswimming]

Universe is literally hostile to life in 99.9999%. It's quite a miracle any life exists in it. Any lifeform in any universe would claim the world is fine tuned to its existence, but is it. Same with time, our universe was hostile to any file for billions of years and it will again be hostile to any new life in the distant future, like, forever. So it's like not totally hostile for 0.1% of it's existence in time. Moreover, why is the fine-tuner fine tuned for fine-tuning?

[Grisscoat]

It is the human mind that is fine tuned, not the material universe. Mind tunes itself, then projects itself into the universe.

[samc]

He played with occam's razor but he only cut himself with it

[jamesruscheinski]

multiple cosmos might be developed from quantum probabilities? which might be virtual particles from energy of inflation?

[markzalubas]

One question I have is if religions demand that you have 100% confidence in the existence of the creator (faith), why did he/she intentionally design the universe in such a manner that makes his/her very existence impossible to be certain about? It might be impossible to know (we won't ever know this). It might be 100% clear (we certainly don't know this now). It seems to live on the 50/50 edge between the two. Not sure what the point of that might be to us. It's like a cruel exercise or joke.

[tschorsch]

Fine tuning presupposes a fine tuner. That fine tuner has to exist in some sort of universe/cosmos. What was the origin of intelligence for that fine tuner, was it's universe/cosmos fine tuned as well. You're back with the same issue. The worst position seems that a fine tuner (god) would have been the origin of all existence. It's more reasonable that existence just is and the cosmos is capable of creating intelligence, but very very inefficiently, and so far very limited. Given the only example of intelligence we have evidence and knowledge of came about after billions of years of evolution and its emergence is probably extremely rare, the universe hardly seems fine tuned for creating intelligence. Using us as an example (i.e. Mozart etc.) is just confirmation bias. It's just another "look at the trees" argument.

[richardatkinson]

Many comments deny that fine-tuning is a real problem. Things just are the way they are full stop. But take any unlikely occurrence - winning the lottery jackpot, say. In the UK “Lotto” that chance is reckoned to be 1 in 45 million. Suppose someone prayed for success, then played the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and won; they played the same numbers in the next draw and won again. In fact they won 16 times in a row. Would you accept that as mere luck? Paul Dirac would have disagreed. He said he would have to believe in God if the evidence reached the 1 in 10^100 level. In fact 45, 000, 000^16 is greater than 10^122. Is the universe tuned to that level of improbability? Roger Penrose calculated the thermodynamic improbability of the Big Bang. It wasn’t just 10^123: it was 10^(10^123). He pointed out that this requires an explanation. (And, in case you’re wondering, I don’t think it’s a god.) Fine-tuning is a really big problem.

[steveng]

George said he leans towards 'pantheism'.

[vinm]

"You can't restrict yourself to just physics" (Ellis)
That is almost obvious
Eg the Earth's biosphere - the product of ideas, not physics causation
Industrial revolution, radio coms, car & plane travel - can't be explained by physics
It is "Top down causation" from ideas & culture
Anything that fails to address "Ideas & culture" can't explain the Earth
It is almost trivial

[marshallwright]

The universe does not feel. Humans feel. The universe can not love you! The universe must be observed with a clear eye and an open mind. Never let your emotions distract you. It is not a matter if there is one category of thought or many, the universe is a massive body of energy ( similar in thought in comparison of a submarine in the [Pacific Ocean x 10, 000, 000 to the 185th power] ). To understand the universe you must be able to understand how energy evolves over billions of years. It is the GRAND THEORY that I am in search of. The Beginning and the process. Everything is part of a Natural Mechanical Process ( not to be misunderstood by human mechanical inventions ). However, hidden within nature on earth lies a truth, the truth of our universe. Marshall Wright

[thekitchen]

Fine tuning has nothing to do with religion. According to the laws of “our” universe fine tuning can be found. That’s all we know. The multiverse is a theory. Fine tuning in this universe is evidence based. Each person has to come to grips and interpret that fact as they see fit.