Sunday, April 9, 2017

An Introduction to the Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning

Most of the readers of this blog have probably heard about the anthropic principle and the fine-tuning of the universe.  However, because future posts will discuss the ramifications and speculations about fine-tuning, I thought it would be prudent to give a brief overview of these topics. Although not identical, the anthropic principle and the fine-tuning are definitely related.

The anthropic principle takes different forms, but is basically the idea that the universe has the necessary conditions for the existence of any conscious being that is able to observe the universe.  These conditions could, in principle, be very narrow or very broad in their scope. Many of the observations about the anthropic nature of our universe were developed beginning in the 1960's and continue to this day. Perhaps the most definitive book on the subject was written in 1986 by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. The authors actually develop four anthropic principles with the first one, the Weak Anthropic Principle, being the most well known and uncontroversial principle, "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so"1

Although the parameters required for life to exist could, in theory, span a large or small range, it turns out that many of the parameters necessary for life to exist in our universe must fall within a very narrow region, or the universe would either not exist or not be able to support life. The fact that the conditions for life fall into such a narrow range, plus the many incredible mechanisms that give rise to the needed building blocks of life, constitute the fine-tuning of the universe.

I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.

Consider the knob that controls the strength of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks inside the neutrons and protons and binds the nucleus of the atom together. If the strength were increased by 2%, the element hydrogen would be either non-existent or very rare. Without hydrogen there would be no water (H2O) or stars that burn hydrogen as their nuclear fuel like our sun.  Without hydrogen there would be no life. If the strength of the strong nuclear force were decreased by about 5%, then hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. That would simplify the periodic table and make Chemistry class very easy, but it would render life impossible.

All known life in this universe is based on the element carbon, which is formed in the final stages of a star's life. The carbon you and I are made of is the result of the nuclear processes that occurred as previous stars ended their lives. One nice recent study showed that if the mass of the quarks that make up neutrons and protons were changed by just a few percent, then the process that makes carbon as stars die would be altered in such a way that there would not be sufficient carbon in the universe for life. The masses of the lightest sub-atomic quarks are the precise value that is required for carbon to form and for life to exist.

There are many more aspects of the universe that seem finely tuned to allow life to exists, some of which I will discuss in future posts. I find that, in general, there are three major responses among scientists who comment on the unlikelihood of a universe so well tuned. The first is simply an acknowledgement that the universe seems finely-tuned but a lethargic attitude that accepts this as a necessary requirement for existence without any further analysis. To me this attitude is similar to a condemned criminal who is sentenced to die in front of a firing squad, but is not surprised that all 100 sharpshooters missed him when they fired. He simply says, "Well if it was any other way I wouldn't be here to talk about it." The second response is a belief that there are many universes that exist (a multiverse) and that we just happen to be in one that is capable of supporting life. Although there is no evidence for any other universes, this is a commonly held belief that I will talk about more in a future post.  In any case, I don't find the idea of a multiverse threatening to the third alternative.

The third alternative is that the universe looks finely-tuned because it is actually designed.  This seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the facts.  It seems reasonable that a universe which looks designed and tweaked really is.  As with other topics that have been discussed in this blog we see that the scientific evidence aligns perfectly with the hypothesis that there actually is a God who created the universe. It could have been different. We could be living in a universe in which the "knobs" have a wide range of settings that support life and could be randomly set. But we do not live in such a universe. We live in one with a very narrow range of values for dozens of knobs all set in just the right place. The scientific evidence shows a universe that appears to have an architect and designer behind it all who has tweaked nature's numbers to create a life-friendly universe. This adds to the the abundant evidence from science that, I believe, is best explained by a transcendent, personal God.

1Barrow, John D. Tipler, Frank J. (1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . Oxford University Press.
2Evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Timo A. Lähde, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner "Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass, Physical Review Letters 110, 112502, (2013).

16 comments:

  1. How many of these parameters have actually been tested for fine tuning? To illustrate this for my school age son's science project, I had him bake several batches of cookies, each time varying one ingredient up or down by a small amount. He called it a "A Cookie Universe" and successfully demonstrated the fine tuning principle. Now, if we could only do this with as many of the real parameters, wouldn't that give skeptics an empirical problem to explain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like your son's project. That is a great way to illustrate the fine-tuning principle. As far as your question is concerned, it is almost impossible to give a definitive answer to the number of fine tuning parameters. I usually say about 100, or dozens, based on the items discussed in Barrow and Tiplers' book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. In his 1999 book, Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees lists six dimensionless constants that give overall fine-tuning to the universe. On the Reasons To Believe web site, Hugh Ross has compiled a list of 322 parameters necessary for a planet to support higher life forms. So I think it depends on how you try to classify the fine tuning. I'm comfortable with saying about 100 based on Barrow and Tipler's book. Although you could argue there are only six based on Rees's book, I think that is an under-estimation since I'm not sure it would include all important processes necessary for life like the formation of carbon as part of a star's life cycle, or the parameters necessary to create a planet suitable for higher life forms.

      Delete
  2. The most recent estimate or count states there are roughly 20,000 genes in teh human genome. To say the human genome is fine tuned is an understatement since we know the malformation in gestation most frequently results in deficiency, malformation, disease, death, deformity or a life of diminished function,pain and early death. Originally a perfect genome created by God now diminished and susceptible all its existence to mutation followed in many cases by the most serious diseases onset. The ultimate example of a God designed tuning of 20,000 "parameters" and their sensitivity to perturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to Michel Brooks
    "13 Things that don't make sense" the actual value of the vacuum energy of space is only 1/10**120 different from the theoretical value. So is the big bang refuted? No! It must be that the alternative is too offensive to scientifically beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what your point is. The big bang is the "alternative" to a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of our universe. I encourage you to read my post titled "Should the Big Bang be disdained?" The 10**120 fine tuning even gives more evidence for a designer as well.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nate, I can respond to each of these with what I think are reasonable answers. Some are in my blog already. But what good would it do? What answers are you actually seeking? Look at my post on "A Small Big Universe" for why it took so long for humans to arrive. Look at that same post about the Saturn V on the answer to parts of the universe or earth that are inhospitable to life. Meteors are really important for providing elements to the earth. I'm sure you can look that up. Bacteria are mandatory for our existence.

      Some of these questions seem to me to not be genuine and/or quite naive. Do you really want to give up bacteria for instance? You'd die without the appropriate bacteria in your gut. Do you want a planet without 70% water when that is just about the perfect amount to support higher life forms? Just look up on the internet the need for us to have oceans for our existence.

      This list is really almost a list of necessary requirements for our existence that all fall into finely-tuned ranges rather than some indictment against fine-tuning.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. It is interesting you bring this up. I was watching a news magazine show on CBS this week where an expert on climate and development was talking about the deaths in Houston due to Hurricane Harvey. He attributed them all to poor decisions made by humans who primarily built where they shouldn't and neglected to build proper water barriers. He said all of the death and destruction could have been avoided if humans made better decisions despite the ferocity of the hurricane. The expert would argue the real problem is not the hurricane but the human decisions based primarily on financial considerations to maximize profit.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. You need to argue with the expert who I am paraphrasing. I'm not the one who made those statements.

      Of course, the conditions that create hurricanes, tornados, etc. are required for our existence on earth.

      Please read Isaiah 45:5-7, particularly verse 7 and we can discuss this more. (I prefer NASB or NIV for my translation).

      Delete
    7. Here is another example. In their book "Rare Earth" Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee show why tectonic activity is absolutely necessary for higher life forms like us to exist. Consequently, any planet with higher life forms must have earthquakes or that life could not exist.

      Would you prefer there wasn't a sun? That wouldn't be good. Would you prefer there wasn't an ice cap? That wouldn't be good. Would you prefer a planet that didn't rotate so there were no winds? That wouldn't be good.

      Given the constraints of biological systems we do live in a paradise. Ward and Brownlee (non-theists) even call our earth a "Garden of Eden."

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for a wonderful post. I am a Christian, but I struggle with the Fine Tuning argument. I believe the universe is fine tuned, but I also don't see it as a good argument to convince an unbeliever. Take the firing squad example. If that happened to me, I would be surprised because the odds of something like that happening is so low, but, at the same time I would also accept that unlikely things can happen. The odds of winning the mega-lottery is incredibly low, but I don't think the winner necessarily believes that he/she won by anything other than chance and that they might say "there must have been an invisible hand guiding the person picking the number because the odds of me winning are so low." Can you help me in my thinking? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure unlikely things happen. But there are still problems with that explanation because unlikely things only happen if there is a large data set, and the more valuable the outcome, the more one questions the outcome of an unlikely outcome. As far as we know there is only one universe so we have only one data point. If there is a multiverse, that refines the argument somewhat, though it still doesn't eliminate the argument. But with only one improbable known universe, the atheist must try to appeal to the unknown to argue there is a multiverse so we are in an improbable one. But since no multiverse is known, this is simply an "atheism of the gaps" argument based on philosophical bias, not observational evidence. Second, the higher the stakes, the more an unlikely event seems designed. If your poker opponent gets a royal flush at the one time when everyone is all in, it seems much more contrived than if she gets a royal flush when there is little money in the pot.

      The fine tuning argument is real and can't simply be explained by being the correct lottery winner because as far as we know, the lottery has only been played once. I recommend the book "A Fortunate Universe" by Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes for a very complete discussion of this.

      Delete