Fine Tuned Cosmological Constant

[Abbas.]

Salams

This documentary is worth watching. It seems as though the idea of multiverse only gained acceptance because the scientists could not accept the explanations accompanying fine tuned cosmological constant.

For those who cannot watch the documentary:

"

For a while it was possible to believe that the laws of nature were not so precisely set so as to require the hand of a creator but then a completely new fundamental property of the universe was discovered. An antigravity force present in space itself. It is called the cosmological constant and when cosmologists calculated it's fact on the evolution of the universe, they realised it had to be very finely tuned indeed.

Leonard Susskind @ 17:18: "The fine tunings.... how fined tuned are they...most of them are 1% sort of things. In other words if things are 1% different everything is bad and the physicists could say, maybe those are luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant thats tuned to 1 part and 10 to the 120...120 decimal places...nobody thinks thats accidental. That is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident. Thats the most extreme example of fine tuning".

No force in the history of cosmology has ever been discovered to be that finely tuned. The cosmological constant needs to be set to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion TRILLION otherwise the universe will be so drastically different that it would be impossible for us to evolve. That the cosmological constant arrived at such a tiny value by chance seem to be out of the question. But the alternative explanation was also impossible to contemplate.

Leonard Susskind @18:46: "Physicists did not want to accept the idea that the laws of nature might be controlled by the well benevolence of nature. There should be no reason why the luck should just have it that we can exist. It's a stretch".

It seemed that hidden in the laws of nature was a value so precise that it was impossible to deny that our universe was designed. But a designed universe required the existence of a designer. A notion that even the anthropic scientists did not want to entertain.

The scientists were between rock and a hard place.Their own discoveries were pointing them towards an inteligent designer.

Leonard Susskind @20:17 "Physicists dislike the mixing of religion with physics. I think they were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is like it is has to do with our own existence, that could be hijacked by the creationists...by the intelligent designers...and ofcourse what they would say is, "Yes we always told you so, there is the benevolent somebody who created the universe exactly so that we could live"".

"

[.InshAllah.]

In order for there to be a multiverse capable of generating life permitting universes, then this multiverse itself has to be fine tuned in such a way as to let that happen, so positing a multiverse only pushes the problem of fine tuning up one level

A second problem with multiverse theory is that of Boltzmann brains. The reason the multiverse is supposed to be able to undercut fine tuning, is that there is so much variation within it that some universes will be fine tuned. But given this massive variation, it is far more likely that local variations within chaotic universes will produce temporary arrangements of brains capable of conscioussness. This is more likely than the production of fine tuned universe given the odds. But that means (given materialism) that we could be boltzmann brains! If we were, then what we see and hear are all illusions, and we would be incapable of scientific knowledge.

[.InshAllah.]

Physics of the 20th century has been one blow to atheism after another

The Universe had a beginning, and exploded into existence a finite time ago contrary to what atheists had claimed

And quantum mechanics undermined determinism

Then we found out that the universe is exquisitely fine tuned for life

[Abbas.]

In order for there to be a multiverse capable of generating life permitting universes, then this multiverse itself has to be fine tuned in such a way as to let that happen, so positing a multiverse only pushes the problem of fine tuning up one level

The documentary does refer to this problem as it goes on to say, "Having raised the possibility of other universes, cosmologists started to wonder what they might be like and as they wondered, they found that logic had set another trap. The multiverse idea had set them on a path that led them back once again to a creator".

I understand why scientists steer away from religion, but the way they seem to approach this issue (and maybe there are other examples) appears bias which I don't expect from the scientific community and hope that I am mistaken. Sure, don't give creationists any excuse to hijack your discoveries. But rushing to other possibilities, just so that you can avoid confronting a probable explanation is something scientists should not be guilty of. They should rather be open minded to all possibilities, especially if the possibilities are based on available and/or observable information.

A second problem with multiverse theory is that of Boltzmann brains. The reason the multiverse is supposed to be able to undercut fine tuning, is that there is so much variation within it that some universes will be fine tuned. But given this massive variation, it is far more likely that local variations within chaotic universes will produce temporary arrangements of brains capable of conscioussness. This is more likely than the production of fine tuned universe given the odds. But that means (given materialism) that we could be boltzmann brains! If we were, then what we see and hear are all illusions, and we would be incapable of scientific knowledge.

Interesting...

[iDevonian]

As a scientist and muslim, I still dont quite understand this argument, nor the opinions that people present here.

Development of various theories, and the physicists behind them, stems from people with all sorts of backgrounds. Scientists of course arent normally "fundamentalist", or conservatives, but you still find a nice number of believers amongst various fields.

So, I wouldnt say anyone is avoiding any "obvious" solution.

I think, people have different views on what Allah is. You cant look at a scientist and expect them to say "yes its God", when, obviously nobody knows. Even if things appear to come from an initial origin, it still doesnt really define what exactly, everything came from. Far from it id say.

-------------------------------------

Then some insist on this "fine tuning". Though, this too is, subjective. Anyone can look at the universe and see just how destructive it is, just as we can see how beautiful it is. You see what you want to see. I could say, there is nothing fine tuned about the impending extinction of life on earth, which, could certainly be painful for us all.

Also, mankind exists and has developed around the universe. It exists the way it does. We are our own demonstration of blind watchmakers, in and of ourselves, if you choose to view us that way. Likewise, the universe could too exist in this way.

Regardless, its nothing that is clear cut. It doesnt matter how convinced you or I may be, because the reality is, many people arent convinced, and at the end of the day, none of us can really describe what Allah is, should He exist. Which kind of defeats the idea of assuming a fine tuning by Allah, if we dont understand what Allah is.

In regards to the cosmological constant, there are many factors of the universe, that if different even by the slightest deviation, in any one of a number of ways, we wouldnt exist as we do now, if at all. Though, I dont really think this says anything about Allah, unless you believe that it does. In regards to empirical evidence, it is an open ended conclusion that doesnt really make any clear statement about a creator. Rather an observation without a description of its cause.

Edited April 27, 2013 by iDevonian

[Rorschach]

As a scientist and muslim, I still dont quite understand this argument, nor the opinions that people present here.

Development of various theories, and the physicists behind them, stems from people with all sorts of backgrounds. Scientists of course arent normally "fundamentalist", or conservatives, but you still find a nice number of believers amongst various fields.

So, I wouldnt say anyone is avoiding any "obvious" solution.

I think, people have different views on what Allah is. You cant look at a scientist and expect them to say "yes its God", when, obviously nobody knows. Even if things appear to come from an initial origin, it still doesnt really define what exactly, everything came from. Far from it id say.

-------------------------------------

Then some insist on this "fine tuning". Though, this too is, subjective. Anyone can look at the universe and see just how destructive it is, just as we can see how beautiful it is. You see what you want to see. I could say, there is nothing fine tuned about the impending extinction of life on earth, which, could certainly be painful for us all.

Also, mankind exists and has developed around the universe. It exists the way it does. We are our own demonstration of blind watchmakers, in and of ourselves, if you choose to view us that way. Likewise, the universe could too exist in this way.

Regardless, its nothing that is clear cut. It doesnt matter how convinced you or I may be, because the reality is, many people arent convinced, and at the end of the day, none of us can really describe what Allah is, should He exist. Which kind of defeats the idea of assuming a fine tuning by Allah, if we dont understand what Allah is.

In regards to the cosmological constant, there are many factors of the universe, that if different even by the slightest deviation, in any one of a number of ways, we wouldnt exist as we do now, if at all. Though, I dont really think this says anything about Allah, unless you believe that it does. In regards to empirical evidence, it is an open ended conclusion that doesnt really make any clear statement about a creator. Rather an observation without a description of its cause.

Excellent observations. +1

[.InshAllah.]

In regards to the cosmological constant, there are many factors of the universe, that if different even by the slightest deviation, in any one of a number of ways, we wouldnt exist as we do now, if at all.

Thats what fine tuning point emphasizes - the sheer improbability of a life sustaining universe. Its not subjective as you claim earlier in the post (and then seem to contradict with the quote above). If you think destruction in the universe undermines the fine tuning argument then you haven't understood it. If a fine tuned universe is so unlikely, then given atheism we wouldnt expect it to exist. But given theism, we would. So fine tuning is evidence for theism over atheism. Thats the argument (at least one version anyway). Pointing to incidences of destruction doesnt undermine any of its premises.

[iDevonian]

If a fine tuned universe is so unlikely, then given atheism we wouldnt expect it to exist.

Well, here ill just highlight this.

Why do you believe this is?

I would say that, the appearance of the universe, really doesnt clarify on anything beyond what it is, itself. We can look at ourselves as people, and we can see, a cell develop into many cells and ultimately people.

But its not so easy to say, that Allah is within us, building these cells, because all we really can see, are the cells themselves. So when a person who doesnt believe in Allah, sees a cell, that person may say, well, all I see are cells, I dont see Allah.

A theist can look at it and say, well, it appears as though, the cells have been made in a way in which they do that. An atheist can say, well, it doesnt matter what you think appears to be the case, what we see is, cells doing that, we dont see much beyond what is before our eyes. For all we know, especially in regards to empirical evidence, we cant really describe or support anything beyond what is before our eyes. Because, in reality we just dont know what is beyond what is before our eyes, if anything. Because we cant see it.

A theist can say, well, what are the odds, that this cell develop into a human on its own? An atheist can say, well, because we dont understand Allah, maybe there is an answer to the question that is simply beyond our understanding that isnt Allah. Maybe it woulnt be so unreasonable if we understood it, and maybe it wouldnt be Allah at all. Or maybe the source of a cell becoming a human is Allah, and we simply made view it differently, if we ever had the opportunity to see or to understand.

The reality is, neither group can really say anything beyond an opinion.

Im not arguing in favor of atheism, im just stating that, its one thing to have a subjective idea, or its one thing to believe in an idea. Though, thats what it is, it is belief.

You and I cant see Allah in this, we simply assume that, because it appears to be designed, that the design must come from what we view as Allah. Which, this belief in and of itself is actually, in my opinion, really difficult to define.

I go back to Ethereal for multiple statements here again. Maybe he could weight in.

Science is dependent on what we can demonstrate. It only works with things we can observe. Beyond that, it cant speak on things. Allah is beyond science, so we cant expect scientists to say "oh its Allah", because in science, it just doesnt work.

Also, its built off of things that are undebatable, so, blatently obvious and before us, that atheists wouldnt exist if science could describe Allah in the form that we view HIM.

Also, Ethereal once stated, that...and hopefully he can read this and point out if I have misworded but, atheists and theists, could potentially, in a sense, both recognize Allah. Rather, recognize it as two different things. Something that exists, may have created, but perhaps an atheist wouldnt even call it Allah, and we really dont know just because we dont understand our creator. We dont even understand something as simple as the big bang, let alone a creator beyond that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont know how other theists view faith. But I view it, as a choice based on trust in my beliefs. If Allah handed everyone clarity and truth on a silver platter, that was so easy to see and understand...then we would all be believers.

I dont think that is the case, I think people need to have trust in ideas. Belief needs to be sincere, where a person is comfortable believing in something they dont know for sure. If I had objective evidence and proof for Allah, I believe it would be easy to show the world without disagreement. But I dont think that is how reality is.

Or rather, perhaps Allah has handed us clarity and truth on a silver platter, and people simply have different opinions about what they are seeing.

We are not prophets, it is difficult to really understand what the true message is. I dont know if our minds could even comprehend this truth if we did see it in full.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited April 27, 2013 by iDevonian

[.InshAllah.]

Because the fine tuned universe is just one out of trillions of possibilities, and there is no reason why it would exist rather than any one of the others that are hostile to life.

[iDevonian]

Because the fine tuned universe is just one out of trillions of possibilities, and there is no reason why it would exist rather than any one of the others that are hostile to life.

You speak as if you have a strong understanding of the dynamics of how this universe was created.

It appears, to many, you can say, well, how can something exist with such slim odds? If the mechanism for creation is unknown, its hard to guage a probability.

Its like, having a dart board in a dark room. You look at the board and you see a dart on the board right in the bullseye, and you say, well, what are the odds that someone could hit that tiny point? It appears improbable that anyone could do it, or anything.

But what resides in the shadows beyond what we see on the other side of the room where the darts originate, could be anything. It could be Allah throwing darts, making the improbable possible and likely. Or it could be anything. Anything you could imagine, could be in those shadows. It is beyond our ability to see, or to touch, mathematics cant handle it. We just do not know. It could be a mechanism of the dart board itself throwing the darts. You may say, well a dart board cant throw its own darts, well, our logic is built on concepts that exist in this unvierse, so beyond the universe, we cant just assume our ideas will hold true. Maybe Allah is far beyond both the fine tuning and the universe itself.

Also, that anything, could be, and in all honesty, it wouldnt surprise me, if there were many things we found surprising about Allah. He could exist in a way in which, even atheists recognize His existence as something other than the being that we describe.

We just dont know. We have an idea, it seems reasonable to us, but it is truly beyond anything that we could objectively demonstrate or understand.

The reason my response is so open ended, is because of how little is known, at least in regards to science, about such a topic. You absolutely cannot expect scientists to say, oh it must be Allah, because this subject is far far beyond anything science can work with. You also cant just expect all people on earth to accept a certain idea of this figure in the dark, when we cannot see what is in that darkness beyond the dart board.

This is why we have faith in Allah, and not knowledge. We have faith and trust in what we view as the noor of Allah. Other people dont have that faith nor that truth, they may not see that light the way we do, or may feel as if the light isnt bright enough, or isnt light at all.

Unless Allah blantently clarifies, we cant expect everyone to see it, the way we do.

Edited April 28, 2013 by iDevonian

[.InshAllah.]

I think there is always an element of uncertainty, and whatever argument is given, it is never completely decisive. But this doesnt preclude fine tuning from being evidence for God, from offering some degree of support from theim. Fine tuning makes the universe appear as if it was designed, and prima facie (at the very least - even skeptics should admit) that this sits well with theism, but causes problems for atheism.