Well. That is your take. Maybe you are correct.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The world that science uncovers got to match with the world we experience, or is the opposite true?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Well. That is your take. Maybe you are correct.
I grant that you have a point. But the comparisons are not on the same scale. Empirically we know that 70--80 per cent people get married by the age of 40. What other factors constrain the marriage of two random people meeting, falling in love and marrying?
In case of coming up of a universe that supports life is highly improbable (beginning from the Big Bang condition) in terms of our own standard model parameters. There are about 30 parameters from the Standard model and a cosmological constant from relativity that need to maintain values as if on knife's edge to get the optimum conditions.
It is an extremely difficult task to correctly estimate the odds. Roger Penrose did an approximate calculation and got a value of 1 out of 10^10^123. This value may be trillion-trillion times higher than the actual one, yet it indicates the enormity.
So Susskind suggests 4 possibilities, the final one being tweaking the physics.
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? - Leonard Susskind | Closer to Truth
...
Agreed.
That was the findings of the author. You can re-read it, if you so wish. I do not find anything odd in their claim that two compensating quantum effects have played their roles to impart water its characteristics as we have today. It is a scientific work and not a theological one.
I do not deny that but I think I have got very odd responses that defy my understanding.
We have a standard model that comprises some 30 parameters that determine the fate of the universe, beginning from Big Bang. Scientists feel that the parameter values seem to be constrained tightly in favour of a universe that can host life. This is the view of most scientists and not mine. I will request you to kindly refer to post 11.
...
This is a fact of life, as we know it.
Post 11 gives some references on the topic.
Actually you got to have an infinite number of multiverses for this to have happened on a normal scale of odds. The multiverse theory is in place, but not all physicists agree.
That, I am afraid, is not scientific.
But John Wheeler suggested 'Participatory Universe' in his paper 'it from bits'. 'The participatory universe' is a scientific concept and if it is coupled with a kind of monism proposed by William James and Bertrand Russel, can offer some solution. This is my suggestion only.
It from bit?
Neutral monism - Wikipedia
A few philosophers do find value in the following statement of William James.
"My thesis is," [James] says, "that if we start with the supposition that there is only one primal stuff or material in the world, a stuff of which everything is composed, and if we call that stuff 'pure experience,' then knowing can easily be explained as a particular sort of relation towards one another into which portions of pure experience may enter. The relation itself is a part of pure experience; one of its 'terms' becomes the subject or bearer of the knowledge, the knower, the other becomes the object known"
...
My stance on fine tuning is already explained in my previous posts. The other point is it is not at all clear that water is necessary for life and it is quite clear to me that far more favourable conditions for life can be easily devised by changing the current laws of physics. Thus, no, I don't believe fine-tuning for life is something that is there in this universe.
There is no poll of physicists regarding what they believe. Most physicists don't think about it all. Most who do, don't take the idea of fine-tuning for life seriously. Those who do write more books about it, that's why you get to hear of them.
By the way, I am a neutral monist (and I think Upanisads have the same metaphysics). But the James quote you gave is not neutral monism.
ttps://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Neutral_Monism_A_Saner_Solution_to_the_Mind_Body_Problem
What then if the mental and the physical, quite irreconcilable when taken as independent natures, are really the common offspring of another sort of nature, something in-between the two? This something would be an essence neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and physical. Theories that propose this are called ‘neutral monist’: ‘monist’ because, unlike dualism, they envisage only one fundamental kind of stuff in the world; ‘neutral’ because this unifying nature is hypothesized to lie betwixt mentality and physicality, equidistant from each, distinct from either, and ultimately responsible for both.
So whereas the panpsychist fills quarks and electrons with conscious minds, the neutral monist constructs the universe from neither-mental-nor-physical qualities, of which colours might be said to provide the exemplar. Far from panpsychism, this is a ‘panqualityism’ (that sleek name is thanks to S.C. Pepper, via Herbert Feigl). It should be noted however that colours ultimately offer us only a conception of the kind of properties we seek. The panqualityist neutral monist is committed to them as a placeholder for the neutral properties, nothing more. That is, colours demonstrate that there could be such natures.
A more technical summary is below,
Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Within neutral monism, my views are closer to that of Nagel
A simple example of showing how this can happen. We know that quantum objects have unique properties that are neither wave-like nor particle-like in a true sense. But, depending on context, these entities are either observed as waves or as particles. A similar formulation can be thought of being true for the actual properties of the ultimate constituents of reality. Depending on context they are observed either as physical or mental or mathematical or informational.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
I don't watch videos.
I'm with @sayak83 on this. It seems curiously narrow to think that the life we know is the only life possible and thus that the universe is purposely constructed with our type of life in view.
Aesthetically I find there is, to me personally, i.e. subjectively, something to the view that the observed order in the universe suggests a creator. But this is not in any way a scientific argument. And there could still be order if the fundamental constants had different values.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Did you understand what the article was about? I must admit I couldn't really see what the research had really found. It seemed to be a typical New Scientist article, in which the need for a journalistic "angle" obscures the actual science, rather than explaining it. I tried to look up the paper but it was behind a pay wall. It is evidently something to do with uncertainty effects and bond lengths. They seem to have found the O-H bond length - or was it the length of the hydrogen bond? - is 5% shorter if H is substituted by D, or something. But what exactly did they do and what does it show? Do you know?
It looks to me that they measured the length of the hydrogen bond H-O vs the deuterium version of the hydrogen bond D-O.
Given the abstract, there seems to be no correlation to life being possible. And I struggle to find any connection that seems relevant.
If this is an example of 'fine tuning', then there is no 'there' there.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I found some abstracts of other papers by Markland, one of which looked as if he may have worked on the effect of the zero point vibration of the covalent O-H bond on H bonding to the atoms involved....or something. But I'm guessing.
The NS article hints that uncertainty effects - of an unspecified kind - have some - unspecified - effect on the formation of H-bonds. I presume the claim is that if H bonding didn't happen then water wouldn't be water as we know it at all. Which is pretty bloody obvious.
Yikes. back to Aristotle?
Water is *possibly* necessary for life. We simply don't know the details about abiogenesis and how it can play out. The hydrogen bonding you seem to like about water also happens in ammonia. And people have speculated about the chemistry of ammonia based life.
Air? It is currently a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen gas with a very small amount of other gases. But we *know* that the current composition isn't required for life because life *on Earth* has done quite well with other compositions of the 'air'. For example, there was very little oxygen in the air for the first 2 billion years or so for life on Earth.
Fire? That is simply chemistry. And we have life, again on Earth, that don't use oxygen (to 'burn' food) but instead use sulfur.
Earth? yes, as far as we know life requires there to be a planet.
Maybe you need to update your understanding of chemistry a bit? if you are still using the traditional 4 atoms, you have a bit to learn about modern chemistry.
Well, I am saying that we know very little about the actual conditions required for life. Life *on Earth* is water based. Most life *on Earth* uses oxygen for its energy metabolism. But, that is primarily because of the local chemistry. For example, Saturn's moon Titan has a methane cycle that is similar to Earth's water cycle, has complex hydrocarbons in its 'lakes' and has been seen as a primary candidate for life that is not based on water.
Are you sure that places like Titan can't have life based on a different chemistry to what happens on Earth? if so, please let some of the experts know.
Your particular scenario doesn't allow for the energy flow that is required for an ecosystem. Ammonia, for example, is a LOW temperature liquid. Carbon dioxide isn't good for inducing complex chemistry, but it can be used for a source of carbon.
But the argument is that *we do not know* what is required for life. We have *one* data point: the Earth. That just isn't enough to make broad conclusions from.
And, we can argue whether, for those 30 *constants*, there might be other parameter values that *could* lead to life. It would not be life 'as we know it', but for example, if the strong force were a bit weaker, it would change the stability of atomic nuclei. But it might open up the possibility of complex *nuclear* reactions (as opposed to complex molecular reactions) to be a basis for life.
And, again *we do not know what is required for life*. Are there other parameter values that would lead to life? We do not know.
Finally, even if the parameter values only allow life in a narrow range of values similar to what we see, there is *still* the issue that even this doesn't mean those values were 'selected' for life to be possible. Life might well be an 'unintended consequence'. And, given the rarity of life, I don't see that as too unlikely a possibility.
I found some abstracts of other papers by Markland, one of which looked as if he may have worked on the effect of the zero point vibration of the covalent O-H bond on H bonding to the atoms involved....or something. But I'm guessing.
The NS article hints that uncertainty effects - of an unspecified kind - have some - unspecified - effect on the formation of H-bonds. I presume the claim is that if H bonding didn't happen then water wouldn't be water as we know it at all. Which is pretty bloody obvious.
Yeah, how much does the hydrogen bond length really play into the possibility of life? I can see it might mean different arrangements for proteins, but I don't see a 'no life' result from a 5% change in hydrogen bond distances.
Probably they did a more accurate quantum mechanical calculation that were able to predict the weak H-H bonds for water in its liquid state.
exchemist
Veteran Member
We have very good evidence that life on earth started in a carbon dioxide environment. Free oxygen came along much later, after organisms developed photosynthesis. Whole classes of organism make no use of oxygen to this day.
Water is a very good solvent which, crucially - at the pressures prevalent on the surface of our planet - is liquid at the temperatures at which very large, carbon-based molecules are stable. However liquid ammonia is also a very good solvent. On earth it boils at - 33C. Biochemical reactions still take place at this temperature, although they are a lot slower than at 20C. But on a planet with a denser atmosphere, one could easily have liquid ammonia at 20C, which could conceivably support some kind of alternative biochemistry. So one simply can't assume that water is a prerequisite of all life.
A fine tuning argument that hinges on the properties of water being exactly the way they are is not in itself very persuasive.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I think the article seems to suggest that no hydrogen bonds at all would form. But that's what makes me suspicious and want to read the actual research.
Hmmm...that doesn't make much sense. The bond would be weaker (this type of bond decreases as 1/r^4, if I recall). At worst, it would drop the melting point and boiling point of the water.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
And do these scientists ever mention that they sincerely believe that the values could have been different? Or is this just a fun thought exercise for them? That's what I am really getting at here. If it is the latter, then it isn't "evidence" for anything - it doesn't support the notion of a "created" universe, it doesn't support the notion that "something" did any fine-tuning. For all we know, there is nothing that can be "tuned." Or maybe everything is tuned. When that sort of confusion of matters is in play you search for further clarification/evidence to point you in the right direction. You don't say: "Oh my gosh! Water wouldn't have been water without [god/consciousness/mind/FSM]."
I'd also point out that there is a *strong* bias in science against having 'too many parameters'. The feeling is that, when there are too many parameters, it is much easier to fit the data and yet not have a basic understanding of what is going on.
Now, as has been pointed out, the Standard Model of particle physics has about 30 adjustable parameters. That seems like too many for many physicists and promotes the question of whether there is something more fundamental going on that produces the values we see.
And, it should be pointed out, this has been a *very* productive endeavor historically. For example, in the early days of the study of electromagnetism, there were values for certain E&M properties of the vacuum. But, when Maxwell found a fundamental theory of E&M, he found that these were tied to the velocity of propagation of light and that, thereby, the theory of E&M became a theory of light as well. This reduced the number of 'fundamental constants' by explaining the 'fine tuning' of the velocity of light.
The most common view among particle physicists is that the values for the 30 parameters are likely to be the result of many fewer parameters in a more fundamental theory. And we *know* that a more general theory is required to explain such things as dark matter and dark energy. So, the number 30 is almost certainly too high. But, until we know and test a more fundamental theory, we don't know which ones are most relevant or how to compute the rest in terms of the basic ones.
Now, as has been pointed out, the Standard Model of particle physics has about 30 adjustable parameters. That seems like too many for many physicists and promotes the question of whether there is something more fundamental going on that produces the values we see.
And, it should be pointed out, this has been a *very* productive endeavor historically. For example, in the early days of the study of electromagnetism, there were values for certain E&M properties of the vacuum. But, when Maxwell found a fundamental theory of E&M, he found that these were tied to the velocity of propagation of light and that, thereby, the theory of E&M became a theory of light as well. This reduced the number of 'fundamental constants' by explaining the 'fine tuning' of the velocity of light.
The most common view among particle physicists is that the values for the 30 parameters are likely to be the result of many fewer parameters in a more fundamental theory. And we *know* that a more general theory is required to explain such things as dark matter and dark energy. So, the number 30 is almost certainly too high. But, until we know and test a more fundamental theory, we don't know which ones are most relevant or how to compute the rest in terms of the basic ones.
exchemist
Veteran Member
It is interesting that such a view prevails. It indicates a faith in the order in the universe being at root very simple or, if "simple" is the wrong word, interconnected very profoundly, without loose ends.
This conviction, or expectation, is the product of experience to date of course, but it is not immediately obvious why it should be so.