exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No.Did you actually see the clip?
No.Did you actually see the clip?
Ah you mean the Anthropic Principle and all that.
I must say I've never bought the metaphysical idea that there must be an infinite array of other universes that we (or even matter) can't inhabit, just because of this arrangement of constants.
Everything around that exists around us does so by an exact and elaborate chain of coincidence, given that there are alternative outcomes to almost every event.
But I don't see that this is science. It's more metaphysics, isn't it?
It's the Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument. It's somewhat interesting in that it seems to be a new cosmological argument for the existence of God (or at least a new spin on the older Design argument). The claim put forward by some rather prominent physicists (originally in the UK it seems) seems to be that a whole host of physical constants have to be precisely what they are, or else a universe such as we perceive (and of which we are composed) couldn't exist. So if the constants could have had any value at the beginning, what made them have these precise values that make a universe possible?? (God, the cosmic designer, that's who.)
Then consider them unrealized possibilities, 'possible worlds' in the manner of some interpretations of modal logic. That's just a way of logically representing the way things might have been in logical space, without committing one's self to their actual reality somewhere else.
But yes, it's true that the Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument (for the existence of God) has stimulated a new popularity for stouter metaphysical multiverse theories among more atheistic physicists. The idea there is that if the physical constants could have had any value, then suppose that all of the values are instantiated in different alternative universes somehow at the beginning and that there is an infinity of universes, each with the same physics as ours but with different physical constants. Then invoke a weak Anthropic Principle and point out that it's only universes where sentient beings like ourselves can exist that will generate internal observers such as physicists. So if those observers become aware of the alleged unlikeliness of their physical constants being precisely what they are, they will believe that their universe is special somehow and the product of design.
As for me, I'm not a physicist. (Not even close.) But the philosopher in me is exceedingly skeptical about the Fine Tuning Argument's central premise. (I'm often skeptical about scientific propositions, which makes me a "denier" I guess.) Regardless of the pretensions of physics, I don't think that humanity really fully understands this universe in which we find ourselves. So it seems to me to be hubris to start pontificating about what supposedly is and isn't possible were things a little different.
Part of that problem seems to be that these physicists are just plugging different physical constants into their sacred equations (theoretical physicists often turn Platonist and confuse their mathematics with reality) which supposedly remains the same from universe to universe. But what justifies that assumption? If the constants can take on different values, why can't the functions that describe the relationships between physical variables take on different forms as well? If that were so, it would throw a huge curveball into the Fine Tuning arguments and render it impossible to predict how alternative universes might behave and what they might produce.
Yes, I agree very strongly with that. Our own lives are hugely contingent as well, dependent on a huge succession of fortuitous events in the past. So were my parents meeting and marrying preplanned by Providence to produce me? Was Hitler (and Napoleon) losing their wars intended to produce me? Was the fall of Rome?
But turning once again to the physics, if physical constants were a little different, and if the physicists are right about that making this universe we see around us impossible, how can they be so certain that a hypothetical alternative universe wouldn't have evolved in its own unknown way, producing stable structures different somehow from our atoms, coalescing into thing different somehow from our planets and stars, and ultimately resulting in sentient beings fully convinced that their universe was designed precisely for them?
My point is that the Fine Tuning arguments seem based entirely on precisely replicating our own universe. But our own universe might not be the only kind of interesting, fecund and productive universe possible.
Theology too. It's an interesting point where all three: physics, metaphysics and theology seem to approach very close to one another.
I agree, in the end all those disciplines seek truth.Theology too. It's an interesting point where all three: physics, metaphysics and theology seem to approach very close to one another.