Proof of God, god of gaps, mere materialistic science or just misunderstood phenomena
1- The numbers that called the constants of the universe like Avogadro constant, standard molar volume, unified atomic mass, mass of hydrogen atom, gravitational constant, Planck constant, cosmological constant.. etc Each one of these numbers is perfectly precise and so balanced with one another that if any one of them were off plus or minus the slimmest fraction there would be no life and no universe as we know it. For example if gravitational constant a hair bigger or smaller the stars of early universe will be too hot or cool to produce any life essential elements, and if the mass of a tiny little proton was a tiny bit bigger or smaller there would be no hydrogen and no hydrogen stars and hydrogen and oxygen made which basically means no water and no biology. So it appears to most physicist and not to all that since the very beginning that the entire universe is perfectly tuned for one thing and that thing is Life and the physicist have no idea how these numbers came to be so perfectly right and most of them agree that it is unreasonable that all this happened by chance. Is this design of a super intellect being or a god or just occurs naturally in one universe amid trillions upon trillions of trillions of universes, and both of these arguments need a leap of faith. This section of the argument is adopted by many scientists, philosophers and theologians to be the most powerful and compelling argument about this phenomenon.
Now lets take a look at an The Anthropic Principle argument:
Anthropic principle in simple term is a concept that relates the existence of life to the nature of our universe.
The anthropic principle proposes that the conditions observed in our universe are biased towards the existence of life because we, as conscious observers, are a product of those conditions. If the universe’s fundamental laws and constants were significantly different, life as we know it wouldn’t be possible, and we wouldn’t be around to contemplate them.
There are two main interpretations of the anthropic principle:
1- The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): This view argues that the universe must possess the specific characteristics necessary for life to arise at some point. This implies that many universes might exist, but only those with life-permitting conditions harbor observers.
2- The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): This more widely accepted view simply states that the conditions for life as we know it exist because we exist to observe them. It doesn’t necessarily imply a multiverse or preordained universe for life.
Criticisms and Applications
The anthropic principle faces criticism for being circular reasoning – the universe has life because it allows life. However, proponents argue it can be a useful tool for filtering cosmological theories. If a theory predicts a universe fundamentally incompatible with life, it might be less likely.
The anthropic principle is relevant in discussions about the fine-tuning of the universe. The values of fundamental constants seem delicately balanced for life, and the anthropic principle suggests this is no coincidence.
A common worry about such considerations is that they are ill-founded due to lack of a widely accepted definition of “life”. Another worry is that we may seriously underestimate life’s propensity to appear under different laws, constants, and boundary conditions because we are biased to assume that all possible kinds of life will resemble life as we know it. A joint response to both worries is that, according to the fine-tuning considerations, universes with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would typically give rise to much less structure and complexity, which would seem to make them life-hostile, irrespective of how exactly one defines “life” .
In an interview with Roger Penrose published on youtube channel called Closer to Truth
Roger argues the anthropic principle (we observe the universe because it allows observation) is irrelevant to explaining the universe’s initial fine-tuning.
Here’s why:
The anthropic principle focuses on explaining why the constants of nature, like the electromagnetic force, are compatible with life. However, this doesn’t address the extraordinary precision needed in the universe’s initial state (second law of thermodynamics). Even if many universes exist (the multiverse), it wouldn’t explain why our specific universe has such a fine-tuned initial condition. The discussion then explores alternative explanations:
Roger proposes the “viol curvature hypothesis,” but admits it’s just a hypothesis. Quantum gravity is mentioned as a possible explanation, but acknowledged current theories don’t incorporate the time asymmetry needed.
If the readers want a detailed description and deeper understanding about the anthropic principle read the wikipedia page about the anthropic principle , and for more scientifically acceptable version watch Cornell university video about this concept.
Arguments against fine tuning of the universe :
We start with the Philosopher Chris Hitchcock :
Hitchcock says that we can’t just calculate the probability of something happening without understanding the process that causes it. He uses the example of a jar with black beans and red lentils. If you shake the jar, it seems very unlikely that all the black beans will end up on top. But once you understand the process (the beans are in a gravitational field and the red lentils are smaller and can fall through the gaps between the black beans), you realize that this outcome is actually quite likely.
Hitchcock says that we don’t understand the process that selects the constants of nature. So, we can’t say how likely it is that they would have been different. The fact that the universe seems fine-tuned for life may not be that surprising given the way our universe works.
Some Physicists and philosophers argue against the idea of fine tuning of the universe in a few ways. One argument is that we simply don’t know what kind of life would be possible under different conditions. Perhaps life could exist even if the constants of nature were different. Our current understanding of physics is based on what we can observe in our universe, and it’s possible that there are entirely different forms of life that could exist under different physical laws.
Another argument is that the idea of a multiverse suggests that there may be many universes with different physical laws. In such a case, our universe with conditions suitable for life is just one out of many possibilities. There’s no need for a creator to fine-tune the universe in this case. The multiverse hypothesis suggests that our universe is just one bubble in a vast sea of universes, each with its own unique physical laws. If this is true, then the fact that our universe happens to have conditions suitable for life is simply a matter of chance.
Some general explanations:
1- God, creator or some intelligent design.
2- The Multiverse: which proposes the existence of numerous universes (a multiverse) with diverse physical laws. Our universe, by pure chance, happens to be one where conditions are just right for life to emerge.
3- The Landscape Analogy: this is an analogy to explain the multiverse concept. that compares the possible universes to a vast landscape with countless options. String Theory, a theoretical framework in physics, suggests a massive number of ways to arrange the fundamental elements of physics. This arrangement results in universes with various properties. Our universe resides in a tiny region of this landscape where life can exist, simply because this configuration allows for it.
4- The Unknown Explanation: we might lack the necessary knowledge to explain fine-tuning at this point. Perhaps future scientific discoveries and advancements will provide a clearer picture.
Criticisms and Considerations:
The limitations of current explanations are addressed. Both the multiverse and landscape analogy explanations lack the backing of concrete experimental evidence and rely heavily on theoretical ideas.
The conversation acknowledges that even with a vast landscape of possibilities, the odds of a universe with fine-tuning for life might still be incredibly small and this doesn’t address the extraordinary precision needed in the universe’s initial state.
The true nature of fine-tuning and the reason behind our universe’s specific characteristics remain areas of active exploration and discussion in science.
My views about this phenomenon (world view)
Fine-Tuning and the Improbable:
the concept of “effective” laws and constants , suggesting the possibility of deeper physical principles governing our universe and generating this phenomenon.
the challenge of assigning probabilities to these constants, While some argue that the life-permitting range is improbable, others suggest this doesn’t negate the fine-tuning for life itself and others say there is no way for science right now to calculate the probability of this phenomenon.
Rare earth hypothesis:
The Rare Earth hypothesis goes beyond just the characteristics of a planet itself, but also the conditions within its solar system and galaxy that may be necessary for the development of complex life. Proponents of the Rare Earth hypothesis argue that the following conditions are unlikely to be met on many planets:
A star of the right type and age: Complex life is thought to require a star that is similar to our Sun. Sun-like stars are stable for billions of years, which provides enough time for life to evolve. Other types of stars, such as red dwarfs or blue giants, may not be suitable for complex life because they are either too faint or have lifespans that are too short.
A habitable zone: A planet needs to be located within a habitable zone around its star. The habitable zone is the region where the temperature is right for liquid water to exist on the planet’s surface. Liquid water is considered essential for life as we know it.
A large moon: The presence of a large moon like our moon may be beneficial for the development of complex life. The moon can help to stabilize the planet’s tilt, which can help to regulate its climate. The moon may also have played a role in the early history of Earth by protecting it from asteroid impacts.
The presence of plate tectonics: Plate tectonics is the movement of the Earth’s crustal plates. This movement is thought to be important for maintaining a stable climate and recycling nutrients on the planet’s surface.
The presence of a strong magnetic field: A strong magnetic field can help to protect a planet from harmful radiation from its star.
A galactic habitable zone: Some scientists believe that the location of a solar system within a galaxy may also be important for the development of complex life. The Milky Way galaxy appears to be a relatively quiet galaxy with a low rate of supernovae. Supernovae are exploding stars that can release bursts of radiation that could be harmful to life.
The Rare Earth hypothesis is a controversial topic among scientists. Some scientists believe that the hypothesis is too restrictive and that complex life could exist on many other planets that do not meet all of the conditions listed above. Other scientists believe that the hypothesis is accurate and that Earth is a very special place in the universe.
The Designer Hypothesis:
a classic response to fine-tuning – the existence of a designer. argument for a God with specific characteristics, capable of creating life-friendly conditions. However, the main concerns about this hypothesis is the using of human understanding of design to infer intelligent design on a cosmic scale.
Alien design?
One hypothesis is that extra-universal aliens designed the universe. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the universe could come to exist. Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes. By implication, previous intelligent entities may have generated our universe.This idea leads to the possibility that the extra-universal designer/designers are themselves the product of an evolutionary process in their own universe, which must therefore itself be able to sustain life. It also raises the question of where that universe came from, leading to an infinite regress. John Gribbin’s Designer Universe theory suggests that an advanced civilization could have deliberately made the universe in another part of the multiverse, and that this civilization may have caused the Big Bang, still a very hard hypothesis to prove using current scientific methods.
Life Beyond Carbon-Water-DNA?
Life on Earth relies on carbon-based molecules, water as a solvent, and DNA/RNA for instructions. But what if life elsewhere is different?
This concept of “alternative biochemistry” explores the possibility of lifeforms with completely different chemical makeup. Imagine organisms built from:
- Alternative carbon compounds: Life might use different types of carbon-based molecules for its structure and functions.
- Elements beyond carbon: Could life exist based on entirely different elements, like silicon, which shares some properties with carbon?
- Solvents other than water: Water might not be the only possible “lifeblood.” Ammonia, methane, or ethane could potentially support life under certain conditions.
to prove this arguments the humanity need a big leap in synthetic biology to explore these alternative biochemistries.
Beyond Current Physics?
alternative explanations within physics. Inflationary cosmology offers a dynamical account for some aspects of fine-tuning, but their is a limitations in applying this concept broadly, even if its dynamical accounts of the flatness, isotropy, and absence of magnetic monopoles in the early universe are correct, there is little reason to accept that similar accounts will be forthcoming for many other constants, boundary conditions, or even laws of nature that seem fine-tuned for life: whereas, and above all the lack of sufficient empirical data and scientific evidence.
The Multiverse: A Sea of Universes?
the multiverse hypothesis, suggesting the existence of countless universes with potentially different physical laws and constants. The “landscape multiverse” within string theory proposes that one of these universes aligns with the conditions we observe. However, the difficulty of testing such theories, concrete multiverse scenarios such as the landscape multiverse are extremely difficult to test, precisely because they entail that different universes exhibit very different conditions. The broad consensus in the literature on multiverse cosmology is that, in order for a multiverse scenario to qualify as empirically confirmed, it must entail that those conditions that we find in our own universe are typical among those found by observers across the multiverse, The persisting difficulties with testing multiverse theories are a prime reason why the multiverse idea itself continues to be viewed very critically by many leading physicists.
Naturalness and the Anthropic Principle:
the shortcomings of the Standard Model, our current understanding of fundamental particles, (except gravity). some shortcomings of the Standard Model, including: The large number of fundamental particles (around 17) with seemingly arbitrary masses and properties, The lack of explanation for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to constitute a significant portion of the universe’s mass. The inability to unify the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force) into a single cohesive description, and the blackbox of the dark energy.
the concept of naturalness: the idea that the fundamental constants shouldn’t be arbitrary but exhibit a kind of elegance (that the standard model don’t has) . While fine-tuning argues these constants seem suspiciously suited for life, naturalness suggests these values might be inherently more likely. This complexity highlights the ongoing debate about how well naturalness explains the specific values we observe.
Complexity and fine-tuning:
Chaos theory comes about because very small changes to initial conditions yield very different results. It results from an extremely simple formula, but the result is an infinitely complex, exquisitely formed pattern. That simple formula either converges or it doesn’t for any given point, and whether a point converges depends on the precise choice of that point — far more precise than any fine-tuning of the constants of the universe are thought to be.
Chaos comes primarily from iterated systems, and the universe is most certainly an iterated system: the state of the universe at the next point depends on the state of the universe at this time. Even a tiny difference in initial states quickly yields a radically different universe.
It doesn’t answer the question of why a universe with this particular set of tunings might exist at all, but the chaotic and complex nature of it is not attached to physics. It’s a purely mathematical property that is true independent of any universe, and will apply to any of a huge set of possible universes.
Unresolved Issues and the Path Forward:
key points: the extraordinary nature of the initial universe, the limitations of our understanding of consciousness and other forms of life, and the significance of fine-tuning beyond just physical constants.
the improbability of our universe’s life-permitting conditions continues to spark scientific exploration and philosophical inquiry. As our understanding of physics and the cosmos evolves, so too might our ability to address this enduring cosmic mystery.
Conclusions
After research, investigation, and deep contemplation about this very important phenomenon in my endeavor to form my wold view of a picture that is close to the truth, I see that the arguments that were discussed above by all human intellectual camps, and even the scientific evidence that was discussed, all tend towards philosophy and the philosophical interpretations of science and This thing is good, according to my opinion, because philosophy is the basis for human wisdom, and it searches for the ultimate goal, the transcendent vision, searches for truth, values, and gives color to the scientific endeavor and its results, and throughout history, in the forests of interwoven philosophical visions, one branch always carries the seed of the truth.
The arguments and interpretations to determine the nature of this phenomenon tend to be on two philosophical fronts. The first front is the realm of the mind or the realm of consciousness, and the second front is the realm of matter and energy or the physical realm. However, careful attention has not been paid to the abstract realm and abstract structures. Perhaps this phenomenon (fine tuning) is merely a human cognitive deviation or bias from what are laws or Complexities that are abstract and eternal in origin. Perhaps the truth is a deeper explanation for this phenomenon, and perhaps the image is what unites these three philosophical visions. I am immersed in the process of writing a comprehensive book about my findings in my world view and the phenomenon of fine-tuning of the universe and of life will be an important part of this endeavour.
Resources :
- Adams, Fred C., 2019, “The degree of fine-tuning in our universe – and others”, Physics Reports, 807: 1–111. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.02.001
- Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015
- 2017, “Testing the multiverse: Bayes, fine-tuning and typicality”, in Chamcham et al. 2017: 447–466. doi:10.1017/9781316535783.023
- Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler, 1986, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Behe, Michael J., 1996, Darwin’s Black Box, New York: The Free Press
- Carr, Bernard J. (ed.), 2007, Universe or Multiverse?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990
- 1983, “The anthropic principle and its implications for biological evolution”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 310(1512): 347–363. doi:10.1098/rsta.1983.0096
- Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 202–281
- Craig, William Lane, 2003, “Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”, in Manson 2003: 155–177
- Dembski, William A., 1998, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570643
- Dawid, Richard, 2013, String Theory and the Scientific Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139342513
- Dicke, R. H., 1961, “ Dirac’s cosmology and Mach’s principle”, Nature, 192: 440–441. doi:10.1038/192440a0
- Draper, Kai, Paul Draper, and Joel Pust, 2007, “Probabilistic arguments for multiple universes”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88(3): 288–307. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00293.x
- Earman, John, 1987, “The SAP also rises: a critical examination of the anthropic principle”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 24(4): 307–317
- 2021, Multiverse Theories: A Philosophical Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Gould, Stephen Jay, 1983, “Mind and supermind”, Natural History, 92(5): 34–38
- Guth, Alan H., 1981, “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems”, Physical Review D, 23(2): 347. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347
- 2000, “Inflation and eternal inflation”, Physics Reports, 333: 555–574. doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00037-5
- Harnik, Roni, Graham D. Kribs, and Gilad Perez, 2006, “A universe without weak interactions”, Physical Review D, 74(3): 035006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006
- 2006, “Fine-tuning is not surprising”, Analysis, 66(4): 269–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8284.2006.00628.x
- Sloan, David, Rafael A. Batista, Michael T. Hicks and Roger Davies (eds.), 2020, Fine-tuning in the Physical Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Stenger, Victor J., 2011, The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us, New York: Prometheus Books
- Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf
- Denton, Michael, 2016, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Discovery Institute; F First Edition Used
- Hossenfelder, Sabine, 2016, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Basic Books
- John Conway game of life, https://playgameoflife.com/
- Brain Greene, Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?, TED, youtube
- Sean Carroll, Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed, Closer To Truth, youtube
- Stephen Meyer, Fine-Tuning and the Origin of the Universe – Science Uprising Expert Interview, Discovery Science, youtube
- Roger Penrose, Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?, Closer To Truth, youtube
- Sir Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig, The Universe: How did it get here & why are we part of it?, Premier Unbelievable?, youtube
- Nathaniel Craig (UC Santa Barbara), Naturalness, Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics, youtube
- The Fine Tuning Argument debunked by a Jar of Beans, Phil Halper (aka Skydivephil), youtube
- Leonard Susskind, Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?, Closer To Truth, youtube
- William Lane Craig, Peter van Inwagen, J.T. Bridges, God and Abstract Objects, ReasonableFaithOrg, youtube
- Using Video Games to Simulate Evolution, Curious Archive, youtube
- Armstrong, David, 1978, Universals and Scientific Realism (Volume I: Nominalism and Realism; Volume II: A Theory of Universals), New York: Cambridge University Press
- Falguera, José L., and Martínez-Vidal, Concha (eds.), 2020, Abstract Objects: For and Against (Synthese Library: Volume 422), Cham, Switzerland: Springer
- 2005, “Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects,” in Oxford Studies in Epistemology: Volume 1, pp. 89–110, Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Hale, Bob, 1987, Abstract Objects, Oxford: Blackwell
