Bernard Carr - Why Cosmic Fine-tuning Demands Explanation

The universe works for us because deep physical laws seem to work. But if the values of these laws would much change, in either direction, then all we see and know could not exist. No galaxies. No stars. No planets. No people. Do such special physical laws cry out for explanation?



Bernard J. Carr is a Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London. His research interests include the early universe, dark matter, general relativity, primordial black holes, and the anthropic principle.


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.

[TheLlywelyn]

One of the best interviews on this topic. Balanced, objective presentation that unpacked metaphysical biases either way as part of the analysis. Without that we are being steered. Much respect Bernard Carr.

[frankfowlkes]

Bernard Carr pretty much admits the obvious. The multi-verse was invented by physicists to answer a question they have no answer for.

[fushumang]

The whole discussion I am waiting for him to say "but". He confirms that multiverse theory is just speculation and not science outside of Rick and Morty

[cmarkme]

the problem with the multiverse theory is that, if we are here because of an infinite amount of combination universes then there will be universes where MIND exists as a God and has the abilities we understand that God has in our own Universe.. The Multiverse Theory is a CopOut... Its much easier to imagine a Designer !! A Mind that exists in a Higher state to be able to fine tune the universe.. Because we, ourselves possess Creative Minds that can Fine Tune our own Realities with the Tools and Recourses we have access to.. So the Designer Explanation for our Universe is so much easier to grasp.. Just because a Creative Agent like God chooses not be seen or heard in a way that Science would prefer, does not say he does not exist..!!

[divertissementmonas]

Good interview! I like that Bernard Carr explained the difference between the relation of ideas (mathematics, astronomy ) and 'matters of fact' (emprical sciences). Both Rene Descartes and David Hume were clear in this distinction too.

[microbuilder]

I personally like the idea that the big rip or vacuum decay eventually 'resets' the universe at such a fundamental level, that basically a new universe with new laws are born with a new big bang. This way, the only explanation needed for fine tuning is the passage of time...with enough resets and new universes, getting our universe with its particular tuning seems just a matter of time.

[Leksa]

I have an intuition that everything logical exists and happens. An existence that includes totally everything is, in a way, informationless and symmetric just like non-existence. Only some things existing feels asymmetric and strange. Of course the idea that everything exists is the most horrific idea one could have.

[martinsavage]

“Multiverse” is intellectual laziness. In reality, you wouldn’t have a finite number of universes, you would have to allow an infinite number.

[jamesruscheinski]

Does the huge numbers of planets, stars, galaxies, and vast amount of space that result from fine tuning of coupling constants and cosmological constant indicate that fine tuning is about huge numbers, which may also extend to universes?

[Ploskkky]

It is like the story of the puddle all over again. This gigantic universe was not created for a few human killer apes on a small planet in some corner of the galaxy. We evolved to fit what was there.

[jamesruscheinski]

Is something coordinating the coupling constants to bring about huge numbers of stars and planets in universe, and maybe huge numbers of other things? What might be able to scientifically bring about huge numbers of stars and planets through coupling constants; a subjective observer, quantum mechanics, something else, or a combination?

[romliahmadabdulnadzir]

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The Big Bang was not that kind of an “explosion.” It’s much better understood as a “finely tuned expansion event, ” where all the matter and energy in the universe were expanding from immeasurable high energy state. However, matching that energy was control and guidance through natural laws that were designed to produce a habitable universe, a home for life rather than souls. The precision and constants of the universe are an example of superior intelligence in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are unbelievable. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life-friendly universe, do wake you up to be the future of AI into superior intelligence (human intelligence forbid)!

[jamesruscheinski]

Could time in inflation / quantum fields bring about constants of nature through probability distributions? Maybe experiments of time demonstrate possibility of developing constants of nature and multiverse?

[michaelwrenn]

Then again, everything in the universe is emergent--including quantum phenomenon. Therefore, to find constants other than those constants we found, would not make any sense at all.

[stcroixatlast]

Consciousness is the key to everything. The mental pictures formed in our minds as we dream are produced in a finely tuned universe, but what type of a substrate are they being displayed in...is it, too, finely tuned? And if so, is it the same? Because I defy gravity an awful lot. 🤔

[mosesexodus]

8:40 "Certain things are real but can't be seen " ... "although you can't see ... you still have indirect evidence for their reality." This line of reasoning could also be used to definitively conclude and prove the reality of a Universal Intelligence.

[stefanschmidbauer]

I find it strange to assume those other universes implement all the other possibilities (yet). That's not guaranteed (yet). I'm saying yet because in case there are an infinite amount of universes it may be already have been implemented. That idea seems equally constructed and identical to the concept of fine-tuning. The idea of fine tuning seems also self centred. Why would the universe care if people, galaxies or whatever exists? We don't know that.

[rvmishra]

I wish, Einstein would have seen Bell's inequality, then the genius would have explained the mystery of Quantum Physics.
We missed this opportunity just by a decade.

[jamesruscheinski]

Coupling constants fine tuned for stars and planets?

[PatrickRyan]

The question should be ~ Is our reality organically fine-tuned OR is it MANUALLY fine-tuned..


And if you understand how unlikely it is that all 19 constants naturally came to have the right values then you can only surmise that it was MANUALLY fine-tuned..

That therefore means that we live inside a holodeck scenario.. with all the ramifications of that scenario.. the biggest ramifications being that our souls MUST be computer programs at the 'source' (albeit extremely sophisticated computer programs)..

And we are therefore potentially eternal..