The world that science uncovers got to match with the world we experience, or is the opposite true?

[atanu]

An old article about the structure of water attracted my attention. Is it correct or not that even if the world as physics reveals is mighty strange, in the end, the scientific conception has to answer to our experience and need/s?

Water is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, each molecule again linking with another through hydrogen bonding to give it a liquid and drinkable nature. Again, it has been suggested that water's weirdness makes life possible.

Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible

It was found that WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous but incredibly delicate balance of quantum forces.

Computer simulations show that quantum mechanics nearly robbed the water of these life-giving features, by destabilising the matrix forming hydrogen bonding, but fortuitously, water has two quantum effects which cancel each other out, and the hydrogen bond matrix is effectively strengthened.

The author of the article concludes "We are used to the idea that the cosmos’ physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list."

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own. We also know that quantum mechanics has solved the fine-tuning challenge via the theory of an infinite number of parallel multi-verses, wherein a fine-tuned universe would no more be improbable.

But my enquiry is general "Does water exist to support life or it exists due to a quantum mechanical chance happening?"

Probably there can be no logical answer. But to me, the role of water, along with fire, air, and earth are primary for the support of embodied life-awareness -- for enjoying widest possible sensual experiences. In other words, in my view, the metaphysical ground for this world is experiential.

What are your views on this?



...

 

[Stevicus]

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own. We also know that quantum mechanics has solved the fine-tuning challenge via the theory of an infinite number of parallel multi-verses, wherein a fine-tuned universe would no more be improbable.

But my enquiry is general "Does water exist to support life or it exists due to a quantum mechanical chance happening?"

Probably there can be no logical answer. But to me, the role of water, along with fire, air, and earth are primary for the support of embodied life-awareness -- for enjoying widest possible sensual experiences. In other words, in my view, the metaphysical ground for this world is experiential.

What are your view/s on this?
...

Life obviously needs water to survive here on Earth. Are there any forms of life which can exist without water or air (or food, for that matter)?

If we're assuming "fine tuning" would be improbable to happen on its own, then it seems we're assuming that there are certain parameters for the creation of life. We're assuming that without these molecular bonds and other elements being in place, life would not have happened. Our planet exists in the aptly-named "Goldilocks Zone" where everything is just right - not too hot, not too cold.

If we're assuming that it happened through random chance, however improbable, then we can say "it had to happen somewhere." If we're talking billions of stars and planets in each galaxy, and the possibility of trillions of galaxies, then that's a lot of chances to find the right combination. Of course, we're also assuming that the elements required for life to form are the same throughout the universe.

If we're assuming some sentient force or creator was necessary to make it happen, then it also carries the assumption that whoever it might have been, they had to conform to certain parameters and rules. They needed to "create" water in order for life to form; they apparently couldn't just make life happen without that necessary step.

This would suggest that whoever or whatever "created" life had to do so within a certain limited structure and conforming to certain physical laws of existence. It's certainly not someone or something that could be considered "all-powerful," not powerful enough to change the entire structure of the universe or the physical laws governing it. But enough to do some minor tweaking or fine tuning required for life to form, but apparently, it's limited to creating isolated pockets of life inside little bubbles of air, such as what we have here with Earth. That would strongly suggest that whoever or whatever created sentient life on Earth is quite likely not the same entity who created the whole enchilada called the "universe" (assuming that there is any "creator" at all).

Could life exist in other forms? Could some "creator" just suddenly will a rock to become animated, alive, and sentient? Could life be formed out of a wisp of gas or perhaps made into creatures of fire living on the sun? Could the Sun itself be a thinking, sentient life form? Could the molecules themselves be sentient?

 

[exchemist]

I am not a fan of fine-tuning arguments.

Any combination of circumstances is one out of many and can accordingly be given a low probability. For example, what were the chances of your parents meeting and conceiving you, when there were so many other people they could have met instead? The probability of you existing, before they met, was extremely low. And yet you exist. Is that remarkable? Not at all.

The fact that one outcome has a low probability does not mean that, if it happens, it can't have been by chance. That is a misunderstanding of probability. Only one, out of all the possible alternatives, can actually happen - and so one of them happens. That is chance in operation, that's all.

 

[Polymath257]

It is also important to realize that water is *by far* not the only molecule for which hydrogen bonding works. Ammonia, for example, has a nitrogen and three hydrogen atoms and shows hydrogen bonding as well.

It has even been suggested by some that ammonia could be a substitute for water as a solvent for life. Of course, the problem is that ammonia is only a liquid for temperatures less than -108F (or -78C), so most reactions will be quite slow.

I am also allergic to most fine tuning arguments. They sound too much like the puddle being amazed it fits into the hole just perfectly.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An old article about the structure of water attracted my attention. Is it correct or not that even if the world as physics reveals is mighty strange, in the end, the scientific conception has to answer to our experience and need/s?

Isn't science just a response to where the evidence and observation lead us? It is looking to model the "real world" that we interact with as close as possible with predictive models and we use the results of this process to understand how we can most effectively interact with and harness the powers we struggle with in our surroundings.

It was found that WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge.

I don't know why anyone would make this claim in the first place. It exists as it exists. Period. Can anyone say that it could have possibly been any different? To my mind, statements like this presume that some sort of "decision" was made to make these molecules (and therefore make "water") behave the way they do. That seems a very conceited notion to me. It's like an anthropomorphizing of the "settings" of the universe - as if the controlling features of the universe just HAVE TO BE something like we humans - some "mind" or directing being of some sort. In my opinion, when you do that, you're injecting some of yourself into that role. You can't possibly fathom how anything as fantastical as the universe could just "be" - and so you make up something to have "created" it, and you make it much like yourself, with mind-processes and decision-making skills, the desire to craft, shape and mold to some ultimate end. It is extremely presumptuous.

Computer simulations show that quantum mechanics nearly robbed the water of these life-giving features, by destabilising the matrix forming hydrogen bonding

"Nearly?" How do the models PROVE, conclusively, that "quantum mechanics" could have "robbed water" of anything? How is it proven that such was even a possibility? Isn't the universe as we know it just like it is now? Could it have been different? If you answer yes, then how do you know it could have been?

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own.

Things are the way they are, and that's what science deals with. To contemplate the way things "might be" is just a fanciful exercise that might produce some interesting data to indicate what you could achieve if you were able to change some function of the system you're observing, but otherwise, it is make-believe. Reality is what reality is. The settings of the universe are what the settings of the universe are. Again - where is the proof that they could have been different in order to even start coming up with "probabilities" of the universe as it exists today? Where is the observation that these forces and quantum interactions could have presented themselves with any other strengths/values?

 

[Nakosis]

An old article about the structure of water attracted my attention. Is it correct or not that even if the world as physics reveals is mighty strange, in the end, the scientific conception has to answer to our experience and need/s?

Water is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, each molecule again linking with another through hydrogen bonding to give it a liquid and drinkable nature. Again, it has been suggested that water's weirdness makes life possible.

Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible

It was found that WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous but incredibly delicate balance of quantum forces.

Computer simulations show that quantum mechanics nearly robbed the water of these life-giving features, by destabilising the matrix forming hydrogen bonding, but fortuitously, water has two quantum effects which cancel each other out, and the hydrogen bond matrix is effectively strengthened.

The author of the article concludes "We are used to the idea that the cosmos’ physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list."

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own. We also know that quantum mechanics has solved the fine-tuning challenge via the theory of an infinite number of parallel multi-verses, wherein a fine-tuned universe would no more be improbable.

But my enquiry is general "Does water exist to support life or it exists due to a quantum mechanical chance happening?"

Probably there can be no logical answer. But to me, the role of water, along with fire, air, and earth are primary for the support of embodied life-awareness -- for enjoying widest possible sensual experiences. In other words, in my view, the metaphysical ground for this world is experiential.

What are your views on this?



...

I think you answered the question, multi-universe. There may be an infinite number of dead universes that exist. We happen to be in the one where life is possible. I don't know if it is the correct explanation but it is an explanation.

 

[sayak83]

An old article about the structure of water attracted my attention. Is it correct or not that even if the world as physics reveals is mighty strange, in the end, the scientific conception has to answer to our experience and need/s?

Water is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, each molecule again linking with another through hydrogen bonding to give it a liquid and drinkable nature. Again, it has been suggested that water's weirdness makes life possible.

Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible

It was found that WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous but incredibly delicate balance of quantum forces.

Computer simulations show that quantum mechanics nearly robbed the water of these life-giving features, by destabilising the matrix forming hydrogen bonding, but fortuitously, water has two quantum effects which cancel each other out, and the hydrogen bond matrix is effectively strengthened.

The author of the article concludes "We are used to the idea that the cosmos’ physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list."

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own. We also know that quantum mechanics has solved the fine-tuning challenge via the theory of an infinite number of parallel multi-verses, wherein a fine-tuned universe would no more be improbable.

But my enquiry is general "Does water exist to support life or it exists due to a quantum mechanical chance happening?"

Probably there can be no logical answer. But to me, the role of water, along with fire, air, and earth are primary for the support of embodied life-awareness -- for enjoying widest possible sensual experiences. In other words, in my view, the metaphysical ground for this world is experiential.

What are your views on this?



...

The article says.,

Water is one of the planet’s weirdest liquids, and many of its most bizarre features make it life-giving. For example, its higher density as a liquid than as a solid means ice floats on water, allowing fish to survive under partially frozen rivers and lakes. And unlike many liquids, it takes a lot of heat to warm water up even a little, a quality that allows mammals to regulate their body temperature.


These two properties are not necessary for life. In fact, because water expands on freezing, life finds it very difficult to survive near freezing point, as expanding ice crystals inside cells causes ruptures and the cells die. And obviously ectothermic animals exist...

I do not believe that the universe is fine tuned for life, as 99.99999% of it is space which is lethal to life. It would be trivially easy to create universes that are far more hospitable to life than this one. An obvious example would be one where there is law of conservation of entropy. Then order and structure in the universe will not be subject to dissipation and life and other orderly complex strictures would be plentyful. Or, consider the entire universe is filled with warm nutrient rich water instead of vacuum of space. Then life would be in abandon.
So, no, fine tuning is not borne by the evidence.

 

[sayak83]

It is also important to realize that water is *by far* not the only molecule for which hydrogen bonding works. Ammonia, for example, has a nitrogen and three hydrogen atoms and shows hydrogen bonding as well.

It has even been suggested by some that ammonia could be a substitute for water as a solvent for life. Of course, the problem is that ammonia is only a liquid for temperatures less than -108F (or -78C), so most reactions will be quite slow.

I am also allergic to most fine tuning arguments. They sound too much like the puddle being amazed it fits into the hole just perfectly.

And every form of alcohol has hydrogen bonding.

 

[atanu]

It is also important to realize that water is *by far* not the only molecule for which hydrogen bonding works. Ammonia, for example, has a nitrogen and three hydrogen atoms and shows hydrogen bonding as well.

It has even been suggested by some that ammonia could be a substitute for water as a solvent for life. Of course, the problem is that ammonia is only a liquid for temperatures less than -108F (or -78C), so most reactions will be quite slow.

I am also allergic to most fine tuning arguments. They sound too much like the puddle being amazed it fits into the hole just perfectly.

Have you ever tasted or sipped or gulped liquor ammonia? I have, accidentally. I was in the hospital for 7 days.

 

[atanu]

...
So, no, fine tuning is not borne by the evidence.

What are you talking about? Are you looking for fine-tuning in the article cited?

 

[atanu]

I thank all for their responses. @sayak83, @Polymath257, @Nakosis and @Stevicus and other readers, if any.

Lee Smolin explains Fine-tuning observation and Fine-tuning problem as below.

Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation .” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is.​

I wished to record that Fine-tuning for life in physics is accepted by most physicists. To keep it short, I have linked a short video interview of Susskind, who favours a multiverse approach to overcome the issue.

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? - Leonard Susskind | Closer to Truth

I also link below an article by Smolin, who, while acknowledging the fine-tuning issue, opposes the multi-universe approach since as per him the multi-universe approach is not scientific enough.

Scientific Approaches to the Fine-Tuning Problem

Below, I also link three authoritative articles on the subject that will help with references and also the counterpoints etc.

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof
...

 

[atanu]

I think you answered the question, multi-universe. There may be an infinite number of dead universes that exist. We happen to be in the one where life is possible. I don't know if it is the correct explanation but it is an explanation.

I think so. Yes.

 

[atanu]

If we're assuming "fine tuning" would be improbable to happen on its own, then it seems we're assuming that there are certain parameters for the creation of life. We're assuming that without these molecular bonds and other elements being in place, life would not have happened. Our planet exists in the aptly-named "Goldilocks Zone" where everything is just right - not too hot, not too cold.

Regarding fine-tuning please see post 11. Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

I thank all for their responses. @sayak83, @Polymath257, @Nakosis and @Stevicus and other readers, if any.

Lee Smolin explains Fine-tuning observation and Fine-tuning problem as below.

Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation .” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is.​

I wished to record that Fine-tuning for life in physics is accepted by most physicists. To keep it short, I have linked a short video interview of Susskind, who favours a multiverse approach to overcome the issue.

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? - Leonard Susskind | Closer to Truth

I also link below an article by Smolin, who, while acknowledging the fine-tuning issue, opposes the multi-universe approach since as per him the multi-universe approach is not scientific enough.

Scientific Approaches to the Fine-Tuning Problem

Below, I also link three authoritative articles on the subject that will help with citations and also the counterpoints etc.

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof
...

While it is a common view, it is very far from being accepted by most physicists. Weinberg, for example, argues against fine tuning in most of the examples commonly given.

Fundamental to most fine tuning concept is that the constants *could* have been different than they are. This is, to say the least, a leap away from the data. What we know of is that they are *constant*.

Now, it is possible that these constants are set by some more refined theory (and this is one of the research topics being actively worked on). It is possible that they do vary, but that the current values are some sort of equilibrium values. It is possible that they do not change and that there is no explanation of why they are the values they are at all. Perhaps they change to maximize complexity (one of my favorite speculations).

But again, all fine tuning arguments sound, to me, like the puddle of water expressing amazement that the hole it is in is so finely tuned to the water.

IF the constants were drastically different, we would not be here. That in no way says that the constants were set *so* we could be here. To say that would suggest a purpose that is not in evidence. And, in fact, is so far away from the evidence as to be ludicrous.

And, in fact, the universe is very, very hostile to life. Life simply could not exist throughout the vast majority of the universe. For one, it cannot exist in a vacuum. And the universe is mostly vacuum. Second, it cannot live inside of stars. And most of the matter is inside of stars. it cannot exist for most of the planets we know of: they are either too hot or too cold. To say that the universe was designed for something that can only exist at all in a very small part of it seems, well, missing the point.

Because of this, to say the universe is fine tuned for life (or even us) seems to me to be the height of hubris. We simply are not that important in the grand scheme of things. We live on a small planet orbiting a rather ordinary star in a rather ordinary spiral galaxy. We have NO evidence of life anywhere else, either in our own galaxy of 200 billion stars, nor in the hundreds of billions of galaxy we know about.

 

[Polymath257]

Have you ever tasted or sipped or gulped liquor ammonia? I have, accidentally. I was in the hospital for 7 days.

So? It isn't appropriate for *our* form of life. We base our chemistry on water. But that in no way says life could not form using ammonia chemistry. Your (and our) reactions may not be typical of other life if it exists elsewhere.

 

[atanu]

While it is a common view, it is very far from being accepted by most physicists. Weinberg, for example, argues against fine tuning in most of the examples commonly given.
....t.

Weinberg, as far as I understand, does not exactly deny that parameters are tuned for life. He suggests some options. He also offers a lot of 'maybe' and 'could be' and makes a poor argument. He also suggests that cosmological constant could be zero. He is entitled to his speculations.

We know that in physics there are more than one opinions. But why do you not agree with the majority of physicists who agree that the parameters are indeed suited for life? Is it because you adhere to physicalism?

So? It isn't appropriate for *our* form of life. We base our chemistry on water. But that in no way says life could not form using ammonia chemistry. Your (and our) reactions may not be typical of other life if it exists elsewhere.

Again 'could be? Why try to pin arguments on hypotheticals always? Why is it difficult to accept the fact that water is important for life? That is the datum.
...

 

[Polymath257]

Weinberg, as far as I understand, does not exactly deny the that parameters are tuned for life. He suggests some options. He also offers a lot of 'maybe' and 'could be' and makes very poor argument. He seems to oppose multiverse as Smolin also does.

We know that in physics there are more than one opinions. But why do you not agree with the majority of physicists who agree that the parameters are indeed suited for life? Is it because you adhere to physicalism?

I agree that life as we know it would not exist if the parameters were significantly different and if the basic laws were the same. I don't see that as the same as being suited for life.

Again 'could be? Why try to pin arguments on hypotheticals always? Why is it difficult to accept the fact that water is important for life? That is the datum.
...

But the fact of the matter is that we only have one data point. The Earth. And that gives us NO data about the rest of the universe. As far as we know ammonia based life might be the default and we are the unusual ones. We simply do not know.

If we know more about abiogenesis, then we might be able to say something about whether ammonia based life is possible. But, at this point, we don't have a handle on abiogenesis.

 

[sayak83]

I thank all for their responses. @sayak83, @Polymath257, @Nakosis and @Stevicus and other readers, if any.

Lee Smolin explains Fine-tuning observation and Fine-tuning problem as below.

Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation .” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is.​

I wished to record that Fine-tuning for life in physics is accepted by most physicists. To keep it short, I have linked a short video interview of Susskind, who favours a multiverse approach to overcome the issue.

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? - Leonard Susskind | Closer to Truth

I also link below an article by Smolin, who, while acknowledging the fine-tuning issue, opposes the multi-universe approach since as per him the multi-universe approach is not scientific enough.

Scientific Approaches to the Fine-Tuning Problem

Below, I also link three authoritative articles on the subject that will help with references and also the counterpoints etc.

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof
...

The issue here is that the word "fine-tuning" is a misnomer. There are certain constants in the current physics models and theoretical physicists are trying to explore if a deeper theory exists that can explain the values these constants are taking. The word fine-tuning here simply means that these constants, in our current models, are arbitrary free parameters whose values have to be put in by hand to produce the results that match what is measured in the real world. When any model ( of anything: economic models, climate models, structural mechanics models etc.) has this feature, we in the modelling research call these models as requiring "fine tuning". They usually signal that these models are semi-empirical in nature and do not reflect the actual underlying physics. Of course, when fundamental physics has a model that requires " fine-tuning" it means the same thing and we are in trouble. That's why the search for a deeper theory using the trillion dollar LHC that has yielded zilch.... or why propositions of 11 dimensional world etc.

The fact remains that the current models of fundamental physics are empirically adequate without being fundamental. The models need fine tuning, and has no room for dark matter ( if it exists) and limited understanding of dark energy ( if that exists). Dark matter and Dark energy are supposed to constitute 96% of all that is physical in the universe and there is no theory for them!!
Hence my considered view is that the current physics models are not fundamental but grossly semi-empirical and hence once should stay away from metaphysical speculations relying on their structure.

 

[sayak83]

Have you ever tasted or sipped or gulped liquor ammonia? I have, accidentally. I was in the hospital for 7 days.

We are water borne life. Does not mean ammonia borne life can't evolve in planets where liquid ammonia oceans occur.

 

[atanu]

We are water borne life. Does not mean ammonia borne life can't evolve in planets where liquid ammonia oceans occur.

Sure. That is a hypothetical possibility. Water, air, fire and earth, on the other hands, are facts in our life.

Can we argue that there could be 'life' in a carbon dioxide environment; in an ocean of liquor ammonia, ethyl alcohol or in extremely high temperature and thus the 'Fine Tuning' observation is wrong? Is that what you are inferring?