'Fine tuning' the universe...

[ollypenrice]

Many cosmologists have discussed the fact that, to produce a star-forming (and therefore life-bearing) universe, you need to fine tune the physical parameters to a remarkable degree or it won't happen. My question is this: do we have to regard this as remarkable? If I knock an Etruscan vase off a table and smash it, I would have to fine tune the physical parameters to an impossible degree to replicate the same fractures and the same fragments if I knocked a second one off the table. If I did so, I'd rightly consider it remarkable - but that is because I have a particular outcome in mind when I look at the second event. The fine tuning is needed in order to meet my expectations.  However, if I have no expectations there is nothing remarkable about the way either vase breaks.

If this is not analogous with looking at the processes behind star-forming, life-bearing universes, why is it not? The vase smashed as it did. The universe evolved as it did. If we have no expectations in studying this evolution, why is there anything to explain?

Olly

[iantaylor2uk]

You could argue that if the parameters didn't have the values they have, then intelligent life (i.e. us) would not have happened. So to be in a universe where intelligent beings can observe what's going on, the various cosmological parameters have to be constrained somewhat.

[ollypenrice]

7 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

You could argue that if the parameters didn't have the values they have, then intelligent life (i.e. us) would not have happened. So to be in a universe where intelligent beings can observe what's going on, the various cosmological parameters have to be constrained somewhat.

They do, I agree, but so do the parameters applying to my knocking the vase off the table if I look back through the accident expecting those particular fragments to be created.  The outcome of the falling vase has incredibly specific consequences - say, one thousand three hundred and forty one fragments of shapes x, mass y. It takes very specific initial conditions to produce them, yet they were formed without any fine tuning. We simply accept that those were the fragments produced. So why do we have trouble accepting that the big bang happened to produce what it did?

Olly

[andrew s]

As @iantaylor2uk mentioned one escape is a more or less strong version of the anthropic principle. 

Another is if they were different maybe a totally different set of entities may have evolved one we can't or have not conceived of. Normally the discussion goes along the lines that if the fine structure constant had not been X +/- a small bit atoms would not be stable. However, we don't consider if other elementary structures could be as we have no data on which to speculate on.

Regards Andrew 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by andrew s

[EarthLife]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Many cosmologists have discussed the fact that, to produce a star-forming (and therefore life-bearing) universe, you need to fine tune the physical parameters to a remarkable degree or it won't happen. My question is this: do we have to regard this as remarkable?

It could be that we just happen to exist in this universe because it just happened that this universe has the right params due to pure chance after an unimageable number of other universe begin/end cycles ?

Though I question all of it, I don't for one moment believe that any of this is at all by chance,. We tell ourselves we're working it all out by looking out, looking in, etc,, but all we're really doing is looking at the tiniest part of it all, a view of it's surface if you like with no possible way of seeing beyond said surface of what we think we're seeing.

We can't even prove it's real or not, we can't prove it's physical, a dream, a hiccup of some sort or anything else we might consider.

When I think about what's REALLY going on here (i,e atoms arranging themselves into mind blowingly complicated arrangements that give rise to self movement, thought, feeling, thinking, awareness, arrogance, fear etc etc etc), I can't help but feel certain that it's not something we can ever come to terms with about how the hell it's actually happening or even existing in the first place.

What would it take to create such a system from nothing at all if we thought we could do so, baring in mind that we and nothing else would exist in the first place to get it going in the first place ?

Edited March 3, 2023 by EarthLife

[andrew s]

1 minute ago, ollypenrice said:

They do, I agree, but so do the parameters applying to my knocking the vase off the table if I look back through the accident expecting those particular fragments to be created.  The outcome of the falling vase has incredibly specific consequences - say, one thousand three hundred and forty one fragments of shapes x, mass y. It takes very specific initial conditions to produce them, yet they were formed without any fine tuning. We simply accept that those were the fragments produced. So why do we have trouble accepting that the big bang happened to produce what it did?

Olly

Also, consider the unimaginable odds against you and the vase being created and in such proximity that you could knock it over!

Regards Andrew 

[Andy ES]

58 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The fine tuning is needed in order to meet my expectations.  However, if I have no expectations there is nothing remarkable about the way either vase breaks.

I think this is similar to when I think about the chances of the exact version of me being born that exists now.

The thousands of people who had to meet in the first place, not to mention the right sperm meeting the right egg.

I must be a billions and billions : 1 chance.

But still I exist as I do, probably this is accepted as No one had any expectations of me being as I am, just like the smashed vase.😁

[andrew s]

Of course once something has happened ths odds of it happening are 100% .

Regards Andrew 

[ollypenrice]

11 minutes ago, andrew s said:

As @iantaylor2uk mentioned one escape is a more or less strong version of the anthropic principle. 

Another is if they were different maybe a totally different set of entities may have evolved one we can't or have not conceived of. Normally the discussion goes along the lines that if the fine structure constant had not been X +/- a small bit atoms would not be stable. However, we don't consider if other elementary structures could be as we have no data on which to speculate on.

Regards Andrew 

 

There's the rub. I have always struggled with the anthropic principle, not because I don't understand it but because I don't see the need for it. It seems to me (perhaps wrongly) that it is born of a spurious need to account for something which 'just is.'

Olly

[EarthLife]

8 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

There's the rub. I have always struggled with the anthropic principle, not because I don't understand it but because I don't see the need for it. It seems to me (perhaps wrongly) that it is born of a spurious need to account for something which 'just is.'

A lot of people have an unstoppable need to find a reason for being here, or for anything at all being here. It's like a hunger that needs feeding. Curiosity has got the better of us - for better or worse.

Edited March 3, 2023 by EarthLife

[andrew s]

Just now, ollypenrice said:

There's the rub. I have always struggled with the anthropic principle, not because I don't understand it but because I don't see the need for it. It seems to me (perhaps wrongly) that it is born of a spurious need to account for something which 'just is.'

Olly

I agree. It has several  versions of varying degree. I feel at best it is circular and worse empty. I am not aware of any new predictions of substance from it.

Regards Andrew 

[Moonshed]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Many cosmologists have discussed the fact that, to produce a star-forming (and therefore life-bearing) universe, you need to fine tune the physical parameters to a remarkable degree or it won't happen. My question is this: do we have to regard this as remarkable?

I believe it is unremarkable that the physical parameters of the universe has produced stars, planets and intelligent life.

If there had been no “fine tuning” and stars and planets had not formed and therefore also no intelligent life, there would be no intelligent life that could raise the question about fine tuning, or anything else.

Simply because we exist does not in any way imply that the universe was designed in such a way that we would exist.

[Zermelo]

Some possible anwers:

(1) Theistic design, which won't be discussed here.
(2) There may be some (as yet undiscovered) underlying reason for the physical constants being what they are.
(3) The Anthropic Principle, as mentioned above.
(4) We're living in a simulation, or allied explanation.

Our discomfort lies in the apparent unlikelihood of the realty we experience, but probabilistic reasoning about single events can be tricky. Or is "our" reality just one of many universes with varying properties? It gets metaphysical very quickly.

[EarthLife]

Trouble is, we don't know where else to look for answers if the detail (of everything) is out of bounds, we don't know where else to turn for said answers. We'd so very much like to converse with our alien neighbours to help try and gain some understanding of our predicament, but that's never really going to happen is it, we can't even communicate with our co-habitants, our relatives on planet Earth, those whom we've evolved along side with from the very beginning, those we're related too, those we've evolved from, those we live with 24/7.

It's like labels, if we don't label absolutely everything from (again) the tiniest to the biggest, we'd be lost. We can never refer to an unlabelled 'thing' in any way shape or form if said 'thing' has no label. It's a huge flaw with our method of communication (spoken language).

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Zermelo said:

Some possible anwers:

(2) There may be some (as yet undiscovered) underlying reason for the physical constants being what they are.

This one would be my bet for a productive discovery. Lee Smolin suggests a mechanism in his book The Life of the Cosmos. Even if his hypothesis is incorrect, I like his way of thinking about it. Essentially he envisages a Darwinian mechanism which favours the evolution of star forming universes.

Olly

[Moonshed]

34 minutes ago, EarthLife said:

We'd so very much like to converse with our alien neighbours to help try and gain some understanding of our predicament, but that's never really going to happen is it,

Virtually all my life I have tended to dismiss the idea that we have been and/or are being visited by extraterrestrials. I am now 77 and no longer quite so sure. The videos of UAPs taken from military jets are very interesting, to say the least. Whether or not they show ET or his unmanned flying machines we cannot, yet, say. However, I for one have reconsidered my position and now accept that these UAPs could in fact turn out to be alien. If not then what on Earth are they? We have nothing that can accelerate and change direction as these things do, not even materials that could withstand such massive G forces. This strongly suggests that they are not made on this planet, but does not of course prove it.

Apart from UAPs some of the amateur videos of possible UFO sightings are very compelling, the Phoenix Lights is the best example by far I have seen that cannot be explained away by the usual methods, weather balloons, military flares, Venus etc etc. There are many other UFO videos, some of which are fakes but not all.

Will we make contact? Is there anything out there to make contact with? Time will tell. Hopefully. 

[EarthLife]

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

We have nothing that can accelerate and change direction as these things do, not even materials that could withstand such massive G forces. This strongly suggests that they are not made on this planet, but does not of course prove it.

If you could create and manipulate a gravitational well ahead of a vehicle that acted on all parts of it with equal 'intensity', inertia would not be a problem, every atom/molecule of the vehicle and it's contents would accelerate from zero to any desired speed without any inertial effects at all because every molecule would be equally effected and so move in perfect synch, including any bio mass within said vehicle (just like dropping it from a great height).

So the vehicle (or whatever it could possibly be) could I guess be constructed of just about anything, all you need is the know-how on how to create the required gravitational well, no kind of primitive pusher propulsion would be required (rockets, ion drive etc).

Edited March 3, 2023 by EarthLife
typos

[Moonshed]

1 minute ago, EarthLife said:

All you need is the know-how on how to create the required gravitational well, no kind of pusher propulsion would be required (rockets, iron drive etc).

Oh, is that all? No problem, I’ll get to work on it straight away, once I’ve figured out how to work this new air fryer thingy, it’s very complicated.

[iantaylor2uk]

If you think about what is needed for hydrocarbon intelligent life:

1. You need to have plenty of early supernovae to generate elements like carbon and nitrogen and oxygen (probably a few billion years) 

2. The universe needs to last long enough to develop intelligent life (probably a few billion years) 

3. The various fundamental physical constants need to be such that carbon and water have the properties they have - some of which are quite unusual (such as the density behavior of water) 

4. Gravity needs to have the right value so stars are not too close or two far apart as life develops.

All of the above put some constraints on what the fundamental constants are. 

[vlaiv]

Anthropic principle is rather simple to understand.

Imagine you win a lottery with very small odds of winning.

You might say - what are the odds of me winning the lottery? How lucky I am? But in reality - someone had to win it and who every won it - can be asking themselves the same question.

One person, how ever unlikely will certainly win the lottery.

Similarly - universe with a set of physical laws - how every unlikely that particular version is - will happen. If it produces us - we have the right to ask, why us? Or rather - why is it the way it is and answer is - because it is random thing.

On the other hand - there is different way of looking at "fine tuning". We can think of it in terms of thermodynamics.

Imagine box of gas with bunch of molecules whizzing around. If gas molecules are equally distributed we call that state - a low entropy state. If all the molecules are in fact in one part of the box - say left half of it - that will be high entropy state.

Now what is important to note is that both of such states are equally possible - any given state has the same probability, but not all the states are equal.

There is particular "quality" of all the molecules being on left side of the box. It is actual physical property of such configuration that makes a distinction between it an other configurations. In this case - it is quality of energy or level of orderliness in the box.

Similarly - while all different configurations of universe are equally probable - not all have equal "quality".

Here we must be careful - in fine tuning we ascribe "significance" to this quality. Significance is totally nonphysical thing and comes from our mind - what we value. On the other hand quality is something that can be mathematically described - in similar way we describe quality of energy. Ability to do more work for same amount of energy means higher quality energy.

Is that better or worse? or is it significant? that is totally up to interpretation, but we must agree that our universe is high quality one - compared to average universe. However - there are higher quality universes in above definition, and the fact that we live in high quality universe, in my view does not warrant ascribing a significance to it in the way of "fine tuning".

Just acknowledging that we live in higher quality universe than average or median universe is enough, me thinks.

2 hours ago, Zermelo said:

(1) Theistic design, which won't be discussed here.

I don't understand why people shy away from designed universe in discussions?

I'm not talking religion here. There are many forms of universe by design, and if we don't explore or discuss such idea - it's our loss.

Just earlier this evening - I defended position that mathematics = existence. In sense we could say that existence is generated by mathematics, or rather that two are equivalent. Maybe not design - but certainly is "creationism" - although not in common sense of that term (far from it)

 

[Moonshed]

6 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

All of the above put some constraints on what the fundamental constants are. 

Very true, but does this mean the universe was fine tuned for life to develop? Or are we here by pure chance alone?

I’m going to ask my wife because she knows everything and is never wrong, apparently.

[Moonshed]

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

You might say - what are the odds of me winning the lottery? How lucky I am? But in reality - someone had to win it and who every won it - can be asking themselves the same question.

vlaiv

I love the way you explain complex subjects in simple terms with great analogies such that I am able to understand them. 
This post of yours is a classic example. Thanks for taking the trouble.

[EarthLife]

15 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Imagine you win a lottery with very small odds of winning.

You might say - what are the odds of me winning the lottery? How lucky I am? But in reality - someone had to win it and who every won it - can be asking themselves the same question.

One person, how ever unlikely will certainly win the lottery.

ah, but they don't always have a winner, we can very easily go for some weeks where nobody wins the top prize. But yes someone lucky moo will always win - in the end.

I guess if the universe was designed, then we'd be at a complete loss for how that something was able to design such a thing, we'd just be pushing the problem back a layer/stage rather than concentrating on this layer/stage ?

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, EarthLife said:

I guess if the universe was designed, then we'd be at a complete loss for how that something was able to design such a thing, we'd just be pushing the problem back a layer/stage rather than concentrating on this layer/stage ?

How is that any different than saying something like:

In the beginning there was the Big Bang and everything we know "came into existence". How did it happen? Well, that is beyond of our realm to understand / probe / know.

It is intrinsically unknowable.

 

[EarthLife]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

How is that any different than saying something like:

In the beginning there was the Big Bang and everything we know "came into existence". How did it happen? Well, that is beyond of our realm to understand / probe / know.

It is intrinsically unknowable.

 

It is indeed a huge problem for us to answer, a problem that makes the whole thing infinitely mysterious for us.

Bare in mind that the human race is far from logical, it can be good at skirting around things it can't answer

A bit like how atoms have become self aware ? .. that's what you call real high tech !  .. is it the universes way of trying to understand itself ? .. it all gets very strange very quickly, but all quite real, or is it