TE exegesis and meditations on the "design" passages.

[KBertsche]

First and foremost, the small magnitude of the "cosmological constant" is not understood--we do not know why the constant is so small (especially when the zero-point energy of a vacuum should indicate a larger constant). Claiming that the constant is "fine-tuned" is a claim made in ignorance.

Many eminent scientists make the claim that it IS fine-tuned. Are you calling the following individuals "ignorant"?

Steven Weinberg

In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known at the cosmological constant. (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 2001, pg 67)

© source where applicable

Lawrence Krauss

At present it is clearly too early to choose one cosmological model over the other. It is getting increasingly difficult to find accord with a flat universe without a cosmolgocial constant. The question then becomes: Which fundamental fine-tuning problem is one more willing to worry about, the flatness problem or the cosmological constant problem? The latter involves a fine-tuning of over 120 orders of magnitude, if the cosmological constant is nonzero and comparable to the density of clustered matter today, while the former involves a fine-tuning of perhaps only 60 orders of magnitude, if one arbitrarily fixes the energy density of the universe at the Planck time to be slightly less than the closure density. (The Astrophysical Journal, 1998, 501: p 465)

© source where applicable

Stephen Hawking

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. (A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125)

© source where applicable

[technomage]

Steven Weinberg

In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known at the cosmological constant. (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 2001, pg 67)

© source where applicable

Later in the same article:

Reasoning like this is called 'anthropic.' Sometimes it just amounts to an assertion that the laws of nature are what they are so that we can exist, without further explanation. This seems to me to be little more than mystical mumbo jumbo. On the other hand, if there really is a large number of worlds in which some constants take different values, then the anthropic explanation of why in our world they take values favorable for life is just common sense, like explaining why we live on the earth rather than Mercury or Pluto. The actual value of the cosmological constant, recently measured by observations of the motion of distant supernovas, is about what you would expect from this sort of argument: it is just about small enough so that it does not interfere much with the formation of galaxies. But we don't yet know enough about physics to tell whether there are different parts of the universe in which what are usually called the constants of physics really do take different values. This is not a hopeless question; we will be able to answer it when we know more about the quantum theory of gravitation than we do now.

Lawrence Krauss

At present it is clearly too early to choose one cosmological model over the other. It is getting increasingly difficult to find accord with a flat universe without a cosmolgocial constant. The question then becomes: Which fundamental fine-tuning problem is one more willing to worry about, the flatness problem or the cosmological constant problem? The latter involves a fine-tuning of over 120 orders of magnitude, if the cosmological constant is nonzero and comparable to the density of clustered matter today, while the former involves a fine-tuning of perhaps only 60 orders of magnitude, if one arbitrarily fixes the energy density of the universe at the Planck time to be slightly less than the closure density. (The Astrophysical Journal, 1998, 501: p 465)

© source where applicable

Portions of the next two paragraphs:

Whatever one's views toward anthropic arguments, it is not clear that the same reasoning could be applied to the flatness problem. Precisely because we have physical laws suggesting that the universe should be flat, I would argue that the a priori probability distribution for the curvature parameter one might reasonably consider should be strongly peaked about zero, in which case anthropic arguments along the lines applied to the cosmological constant might not be as suggestive, to the extent to which such arguments are suggestive.

In conclusion, we should know within a decade whether the cosmological constant is nonzero, and whether we live in a flat universe. The recent resolution of the age problem has dramatically altered the case for a cosmological constant versus an open universe. A combination of cosmological observations now allows a larger parameter space for an open universe than for a flat universe with cosmological constant. While one might argue that theoretical prejudice still favors the latter, if either of these cases represents reality, the implications for fundamental particle physics will be profound.

Stephen Hawking

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. (A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125)

© source where applicable

Are you aware that Hawking introduces the concept of the anthropic hypothesis (as you note), but later in that chapter refutes the very same hypothesis?

KBertsche, the behavior you are demonstrating is called "quote mining"--snipping someone's words out of context to make it appear that they support a position they do not support. That's three times you've done so (though I have little doubt that you simply found the quotes on someone else's page and copied them here). Such behavior is dishonest and deplorable, and I profoundly hope that you copied those quotes, rather than snipped them out of context yourself.

[MrManNo1]

Jesse, perhaps you're not well-versed enough in physics and cosmology to understand this, but none of the additional quotes you provided disproved what Kirk suggested they were saying in the slightest.

The first one just pointed out that we might live in a multiverse (which is, as far as we currently know, unknowable), and that could explain the fine-tuning.

The second one just goes into detail as to whether or not we'll find out which highly unlikely situation is the actual situation.

The third one...well, you didn't provide a quote. To call someone out on quote-mining, and then not providing the full context, seems like you're just asking us to trust you over Kirk. Why should we?

[shunyadragon]

Jesse, perhaps you're not well-versed enough in physics and cosmology to understand this, but none of the additional quotes you provided disproved what Kirk suggested they were saying in the slightest.

The first one just pointed out that we might live in a multiverse (which is, as far as we currently know, unknowable), and that could explain the fine-tuning.

The second one just goes into detail as to whether or not we'll find out which highly unlikely situation is the actual situation.

The third one...well, you didn't provide a quote. To call someone out on quote-mining, and then not providing the full context, seems like you're just asking us to trust you over Kirk. Why should we?

In a equally unbiased skeptical view neither fine tuning question nor the existence of multi-verses can be concluded objectively one way or another in a manner that they could be used conclusively in an argument.

[technomage]

perhaps you're not well-versed enough in physics and cosmology to understand this, but none of the additional quotes you provided disproved what Kirk suggested they were saying in the slightest.

My point in providing the additional quotes was to demonstrate that the scientists he was quoting do not support the position he was suggesting. I am not refuting the basic proposition--I am refuting the suggestion that these people support the proposition.

And you still have an unanswered question in this thread:

How many of [the fundamental constants listed on the page you cited] deal with the formation of matter, as opposed to being dependent upon matter already being formed?

[MrManNo1]

In a equally unbiased skeptical view neither fine tuning question nor the existence of multi-verses can be concluded objectively one way or another in a manner that they could be used conclusively in an argument.

Quite true. We simply don't know enough. That's what I said in my second post in this thread, in fact.

My point in providing the additional quotes was to demonstrate that the scientists he was quoting do not support the position he was suggesting. I am not refuting the basic proposition--I am refuting the suggestion that these people support the proposition.

You didn't do a very good job, then. They all said that the universe is fine-tuned. They just gave reasons for why it's fine-tuned that don't invoke an intelligent being.

And you still have an unanswered question in this thread:

How many of [the fundamental constants listed on the page you cited] deal with the formation of matter, as opposed to being dependent upon matter already being formed?

I didn't notice the question, but it's kind of irrelevant. Once the matter forms, gravity, for example, works on it to allow it to conglomerate into stars and planets. All constants work together to provide us with the universe we live in. Change one constant, and the effects could be drastic, regardless of the constant. We simply don't know enough to say with certainty whether it would or not. That's why Stenger's program is a waste of time. It only proves that universes could form if one restricts oneself to Stenger's view of the universe.

[technomage]

You didn't do a very good job, then. They all said that the universe is fine-tuned.

False--Hawking specifically rejects the fine-tuning argument; Weinberg and Kraus both state that there is more to the picture.

I didn't notice the question, but it's kind of irrelevant.

Not at all irrelevant--as I told KBertsche, the code is publicly available. If you wish to plug in different parameters or play with different constants, please feel free.

[KBertsche]

KBertsche, the behavior you are demonstrating is called "quote mining"--snipping someone's words out of context to make it appear that they support a position they do not support. That's three times you've done so (though I have little doubt that you simply found the quotes on someone else's page and copied them here). Such behavior is dishonest and deplorable, and I profoundly hope that you copied those quotes, rather than snipped them out of context yourself.

Your charges are absolutely false. The quotes that I gave do not mischaracterize the positions of any of these scientists. The paragraphs that you have added provide additional information, but do not change the meaning of these quotes. You may not like what these scientists said, but that is no reason to attack me.

Yes, of course, most scientists want to find a natural explanation for this apparent fine-tuning. But this does not change the fact that the universe seems to be extremely fine-tuned for life. As Paul Davies wrote in 2003, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life." I don't know your academic or professional background, but anyone with good physics or cosmology training should know that Davies is correct.

(BTW, I could not access the Weinberg article. But before posting I skimmed the Krauss paper and Hawking's chapter to verify that the quotes were indeed accurate and that they did not mischaracterize the authors' positions.)

[technomage]

Your charges are absolutely false.

Yeah. All three reject the fine-tuning argument, you portrayed them as supporting it, yet you did not mischaracterize them. Riiiiight.

BTW, with the exception of the Weinberg article which I could not access

http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

[KBertsche]

False--Hawking specifically rejects the fine-tuning argument; Weinberg and Kraus both state that there is more to the picture.

Please provide a quote where Hawking "specifically rejects the fine-tuning argument." I don't believe he does; he has affirmed fine-tuning a number of times. Perhaps you mean something different by "fine-tuning" than he does? (I suspect you are reading more into the term than cosmologists mean by it.)

Note that Weinberg and Krauss don't really say that there is more to the picture; rather, they hope that there is more to the picture.

Not at all irrelevant--as I told KBertsche, the code is publicly available. If you wish to plug in different parameters or play with different constants, please feel free.

Yes, you have mentioned his code at least three times now. But as I said in Post #29, it only has a "limited set of parameters" (only 4 variables). It does NOT allow one to vary the cosmological constant. Thus it is NOT relevant to discussions of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant (or to any of the other physical constants which it does not allow to vary).

[KBertsche]

Yeah. All three reject the fine-tuning argument, you portrayed them as supporting it, yet you did not mischaracterize them. Riiiiight.

Do you even understand what fine-tuning is? It is not quite the same as the anthropic principle. Most physicists and cosmologists, including the three that I quoted, recognize that fine-tuning exists.

I asked you to back up your claim for Hawking; now I'll ask you for all three. Please provide quotes where Hawking, Weinberg, and Krauss "reject the fine-tuning argument."

[technomage]

Please provide a quote where Hawking "specifically rejects the fine-tuning argument."

As early as A Brief History of Time:

This work on inflationary models showed that the present state of the universe could have arisen from quite a large number of different initial configurations. This is important, because it shows that the initial state of the part of the universe that we inhabit did not have to be chosen with great care. So we may, if we wish, use the weak anthropic principle to explain why the universe looks the way it does now. It cannot be the case, however, that every initial configuration would have led to a universe like the one we observe. One can show this by considering a very different state for the universe at the present time, say, a very lumpy and irregular one. One could use the laws of science to evolve the universe back in time to determine its configuration at earlier times. According to the singularity theorems of classical general relativity, there would still have been a big bang singularity. If you evolve such a universe forward in time according to the laws of science, you will end up with the lumpy and irregular state you started with. Thus there must have been initial configurations that would not have given rise to a universe like the one we see today. So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was not such as to produce something very different from what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation?Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.

Emphasis added. Here is the foundation of Hawking's multiverse scenario--a scenario that notes that we are not living in a fine-tuned universe, but in one particular universe among many.

In addition, Hawking and Hertog also specifically postulate a "top-down" cosmological model, where fine-tuning of a single universe is rejected in favor of a multiverse where many of the alternatives do not populate.

Phys. Rev. D 73, 123527 (2006) [9 pages]
Populating the landscape: A top-down approach

We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top-down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape, and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe. Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also discuss in what respect the top-down approach differs from other approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.

Yes, you have mentioned his code at least three times now. But as I said in Post #29, it only has a "limited set of parameters" (only 4 variables). It does NOT allow one to vary the cosmological constant.

You miss my point: the code is available, and can be modified to allow variations in the cosmological constant. Feel free to play with it.

[MrManNo1]

techomage, I think Kirk is correct. You're not understanding what the fine-tuning argument is. None of the additional quotes you've provided reject fine-tuning. On the contrary, they either implicitly affirm the fine-tuning argument by explaining why the universe is fine-tuned, or they directly affirm it by saying so. What they're trying to explain is not that the universe isn't fine-tuned. Virtually all physicists and cosmologists believe it is. What they're trying to explain is why it's fine-tuned. Just because you affirm fine-tuning, does not mean you affirm a intelligence that created the universe.

[technomage]

As a side note (and no, I'm not fussing), I'm not Jesse--yes, my name starts with a J (hence, no doubt, the confusion), but I no longer use my legal name on the forums.

More to the point: my understanding of "fine-tuning" is that it only applies to a singular universe scenario: in the multiverse scenario tentatively suggested by Weinberg and Kraus, and explicitly argued for by Hawking and Hertog, fine tuning is irrelevant, because the multiverse started with all possible values for Λ. The universes that had a value for the cosmological constant that did not allow for expansion did not populate, but do (or at least did) still exist: we happen to be in one that had a value for Λ that allowed for the formation of galaxies, but that's not "fine-tuning," any more than suggesting that earth is "fine-tuned" for life when compared to Pluto.

That looks to be very much what Weinberk, Kraus, and Hawking/Hertog are arguing for--not a fine-tuned singular universe, but simply one universe out of a multitude.

[MrManNo1]

My apologies on the name confusion. I'm not sure where I got Jesse from. I think I recall your correct name now. If you'd prefer it not be used anymore, I won't say it.

You are correct in that the multiverse is a possible reason for fine-tuning, but, as it stands, fine-tuning is a real phenomena.