Is it unscientific to ask why the universe is fine tuned? Sabine Hossenfelder & Luke Barnes

Sabine Hossenfelder & Luke Barnes debate the role of scientific questions in the search to understand the fine-tuning of the universe.
 

[garyheron]

3:40 We have no examples of universes that don't support life. We have only one example of a universe and it does contain life.

[jamesmarshall]

" we have so many examples of universes where life couldn't exist" where where are these examples? Surely these so called examples are just postulations

[rolandgerard]

Everything has been created. HalleluYAH.

[nathanketsdever]

Thanks very much to Justin and Unbelievable for holding and participating in these dialogues along with Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes ....

As I see it, there is a basic incoherence or confusion I'm having here in terms of how certain scientists approach these issues (there are some Christians in these various camps as well, to be fair)--if we look at the work of the Santa Fe Institute in the US, particularly that which shows up on say YouTube or more non-traditional science publications online, they all talk in the language of science about philosophy (and presumably it's still called science in some way or fashion). Its worth noting that Santa Fe Institute's overall mission and content seems to actively address more philosophically oriented questions using observation and data from science. As such, I don't think scientists or materialists would have any problem calling that science.

I think we need to learn to talk about the meta-science questions in terms of types of science and/or types of philosophy albeit not in the laboratory. Because otherwise, calling populariers anything close to science seems to be a step to far.

But we are in need of conceptual clarity on these issues so we can have dictionary definitions in the context of a visual form which distinguishes the levels we are talking about. Because if we don't we will perpetually talk in circles. As the famous philosopher Wittgenstein noticed it is philosophy's job to answer and clarify (or create or reform) language in such cases.

At the point at which we are talking about data + inference or observation + inference based on that data, we seem to be beyond the realm of science (according to materialists).

Sabine Hossenfelder even admits this fairly on in the discussion--as she mentions the other areas that it occurs in.

It is well past time to end this conceptual clarity. It goes back at least as far as David Hume in terms of defining science. But it implicates what counts as science, which is perhaps the foundational questions on these and related issues. It also perhaps gets to the question of if science can point in two different directions.

Hopefully a joint effort between the scientist and philosophers can help push us forward--because to be having this conversation in 5 years or 10 years without a new language to help guide such discusions seems to be an exercise in futility or a kind of conceptual blindness.

If Hossenfelder is correct, a whole series of publications in the scientific community need to retract their use of the word science to justify their existence and credibility.

The use of scientific naturalism at the base and foundation of every experiment in the history of science, also suggest a smuggling in of philosophy under the rubric of science. So this thing that Fine tuning and Luke Barnes by extension are perhaps being accussed of is done by science itself and scientist themselves. So, it's kind of pot and kettle, if we're being honest with outselves.


I think we need to acknowledge the hybridity that exists at the borders of philosophy and science and unpack what that looks like and understand it's value.
It's not science in the way that the chemistry experiments I did in college might be called science. But the inferences on any science publication are just that inferences and intutions. They are pattern seeking using human reason and human frameworks and philosophies. Epistemology, method, and frameworks are all deeply philosophical. We must come to terms with our philosophical and epistemological and methodological assumptions and the only way of doing so is via philosophy or some blend of the two, which happens on the borderlants.

Both the history of science and the philosophy of science require the interaction of other fields beyond biology, chemistry, and physics (the least of which is design, grammar, reasoning, but ultimately a whole host of related fields that every scientists depends on, including the accountant, the lawyer, the CEO, and the janitor).

[orlovsskibet]

Why is this so damn hard?
We don't know if and why it is fine tuned.
Say after me: I don't know
See it wasn't that difficult 😀

[juliahello]

At some point, much of what we know in physics started out as a vague high level theory. Then it was broken down into predictions, the predictions were tested, and eventually broadly agreed upon "facts" were created. I don't understand why some physicists immediately categorize some high level theories (with some evidence for them, like fine-tuning) as "philosophy" (said with disdain) without even trying to work out what predictions and evidence could prove or disprove them. When I look at the theories that physicists dismiss out of hand, it looks like they are relying on emotional, irrational criteria. If it is too "cool" it must be dismissed. If it has even a remote similarity to religion it must be dismissed. I'm sure there are a lot of theories with less evidence for them that don't get this kind of response because they don't have the popular appeal that some physicists feel they have to distance themselves from.

[supersmart]

How does she know for sure it's not a scientific question? 0:45 she is confident that you can ask for a scientific explanation but it won't be scientific explanation...how is it possible to assert objectively from a naturalistic Atheistic perspective...I wish William Lane Craig could comment on this..

[mrshankerbillletmein]

Some say the appearance of designe is an illusion its just how it is were not all convinced of that.

[vanoroce]

Is it possible that some questions have no answer?

Also, let's say our universe is the result of a highly unlikely, yet accidental (or not driven by a god / agent) process. How would we be able to tell, if we insist our explanations make the facts more rather than less likely, *and* we can't investigate this with scientific methods?

[MyMy-tvfd]

science is secondary, it is mechanical. Philosophy is about meaning. Historically and logically philosophy intellectually preceeds science, so science cannot exist without previous philosophy. So science is always secondary and subordinate to the meaning questions of philosophy.

[garyheron]

I think that the fact human religions have human beings as the best and most special creation of a God has far more to do with human ego than it does with available evidence.

[MrFossilabgfyth]

Some questions about reality aren't scientific. Some are moral, philosophical, religious, etc.

Maybe one day, as science advances we may find an answer. Or maybe it is just a question that isn't meant for science.

[NeverTalkToCops]

Fine tuning does not require a Fine Tuner. With a sample size of ONE universe, the claim of fine tuning is obviously and conclusively flawed. Game Over, Fine Tuning.

[briendoyle]

Bring in a scientist!!
Not one will use that terminology!
Our Universe is in 'chaos'!
Some aspects are 'balanced' like our Earth - for the moment...

[ScienceFoundation]

It's a loaded question because the notion of a fine tuned universe is nonsense. What are you comparing all of reality to in order to say it's fine tuned? You have zero frame of reference. Also, its fine tuned because one planet out of a hundred septillion planets has life on it? If a mountain had of an ounce of gold, no one in their right mind would think "Hey, that's clearly fine tuned for gold mining"

[damienroberts]

So, if you are a serious 'scientist' you are required to NEVER see the forest for the trees?! Understood.

[johnnytass]

Can science ask Why questions? Lawrence Krauss and of course Sabine Hossenfelder here says only How questions are scientifically valid.

[gilsegura]

Physics hits a wall where our human knowledge, perceptions ends and a more subtle, finer tool or model is needed- Investigating Consciousness is the end of ALL knowledge because it is the highest knowledge known to man - simply put that there is only consciousness and that everything is made up of consciousness including ourselves- consciousness is the intelligence and material that makes up all creation because consciousness is 'existence itself" or the 'isness' of life. The deeper down we go to the "essence" or "substance" of matter/cosmos matter/particles disappear and there is only space- apparent matter is only a tiny fraction of the entire cosmos which is only space. The greatest knowledge known to humankind is already existing in the Indian Hindu philosophy in the vedic scriptures. The pioneers of quantum physics took most of their ideas from the Hindu vedas- their theories and ideas were not original but borrowed from the vedas (science of reveal that we are limitless awareness, partless, whole & complete - humans suffer because they are ignorant of their true nature....

[reeb]

I AM THAT I AM says, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

[walterdaems]

Look at what we know; ejaculations. Millions of sperm are destined for the drain, only one makes it into a fetus. There are very good reasons to assume that the coming into existence of universes follows the same procedure. Most implode, some are barely functional and once and awhile a universe has the necessary parameters for life. But even then, the ‘fine tuning’ should be taken with a grain of salt since the universe as a whole is most certainly not fine tuned for human life. The moment we leave our rock, the universe becomes very inhospitable to say the least.