Fine-Tuning Argument

Front 1

State the argument.

Back 1

God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

So there exists a personal, intelligent, transcendent mind who finely-tuned the universe for intelligent life.

This is not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical argument/metaphysical explanation; the philosopher is not constrained by the methodological naturalism of the scientist (so even if the scientist couldn't make this inference, that does nothing to invalidate the inference).

Front 2

What is fine-tuning?

Back 2

It does not mean designed, but that the physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants or quantities, whose values are not mandated by the laws themselves; a universe governed by such laws might be characterised by any of a wide range of values for such variables.

Fine tuning means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting.

Front 3

What is an example of a finely tuned constant?

Back 3

Entropy of the Universe: 4 x 10^81 J/K.

Physicist Sir Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low-entropy condition having arisen sheerly by chance in the absence of any constraining principles is at least 1 part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist.

'I [Penrose] cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is know to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^10(123).'

Front 4

Premise (1): What is its support?

Back 4

Premise (1) seems to exhaust the most plausible alternatives.

So, the soundness of the argument depends on the plausibility of premise (2).

Front 5

In premise (1), couldn't the fine-tuning be due to something else?

Back 5

Merely listing other possibilities does nothing to defeat premise (1); possibility doesn’t imply plausibility and possibilities come cheap.

So long as the premise is more plausibly true than false, then one should accept it.

Front 6

Premise 2: Why can't the fine-tuning be plausibly attributed to physical necessity?

Back 6

M

Front 7

Premise 2: Why can't the fine-tuning be plausibly attributed to chance?

Back 7

M

Front 8

What is the many worlds hypothesis (MWH)?

Back 8

The metaphysical hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered universes, undetectably by us, composing a world ensemble/multiverse, of which our universe is but a tiny part.

In this infinite world ensemble, finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone and we happen to be living in one of them.

Front 9

What are two problems with the MWH?

Back 9

1. There's no independent evidence that a world ensemble exists.

2. If our universe is just a random member of a world ensemble then it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than the one that we do.

Front 10

What does it mean that there's no independent evidence that a world ensemble exists?

Back 10

There is no evidence of a world ensemble apart from the fine-tuning itself.

But the fine-tuning is equally evidence for a Cosmic Designer.

The design hypothesis is the better explanation because we have independent evidence of God's existence in the form of other arguments.

Front 11

What about inflationary theories?

Back 11

M

Front 12

What does it mean that if our universe is just a random member of a world ensemble then it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than the one that we do?

Back 12

Sir Roger Penrose (physicist) has pressed this objection forcefully; he has calculated that the odds of our universe's initial low-entropy condition's existing by chance alone is 1 in 10^10(123).

By contrast the odds of our solar system suddenly forming by the random collision of particles is inconceivably more probable, 1 in 10^10(60), which Penrose says is "utter chicken feed" in comparison.

So, it's inconceivably more probable that we should be observing an orderly region no larger than our solar system than a fine-tuned universe like ours.

Indeed, the most probable observable universe would be one in which a single brain (Boltzmann brain) fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum with illusory perceptions of the external world. So if one accepts the MWH, they are obligated to believe that they are all that exists and that everything they perceive is just illusory. But no sane person believes that they are a Boltzmann brain.

So, on atheism, it's highly improbable that a world ensemble exists.

Front 13

Objection: The Designer Himself remains unexplained; who designed the Designer? And if the Designer doesn't need an explanation, why think the fine-tuning does?

Back 13

This objection is based on a misconception of the nature of explanation.

In order for an explanation to be the best, one does not need to have an explanation of the explanation, or this would lead to an infinite regress so that one could never explain anything.

E.g., if astronauts find evidence of intelligent life on another planet, they needn't be able to explain such life to recognise that it's the best explanation of the evidence.

In the same way, the design hypothesis' being the best explanation of the fine-tuning doesn't depend on one's ability to explain the Designer.

Front 14

Objection: Doesn't the complexity of an intelligent mind demand a designer?

Back 14

The complexity of a mind isn't analogous to the complexity of the universe.

1. A mind's ideas may be complex, but a mind itself is a very simple thing, being an immaterial entity not composed of separable parts.

2. Properties like intelligence and volition are essential properties of a mind's nature, so postulating an uncreated mind is nothing like postulating an undesigned universe.

Front 15

A person who wins the lottery, despite the inconceivable odds, would be unjustified to think that the lottery was rigged by design just because the odds were so low, since someone had to win. Similarly, any particular universe is very improbable, but some universe has to exist. So you can't conclude that because our universe is highly improbable, that therefore it is due to design.

Back 15

This analogy only shows that one has misunderstood the argument.

The argument isn't concerned with the probability that (our) one particular universe exists, since each universe is equally improbable.

What it's really concerned with is that fact that it's inconceivably more probable that whichever universe exists, it would be life-prohibiting, rather than life-permitting.

The odds of that is what calls out for design.

Front 16

Isn't this God of the Gaps?

Back 16

M

Front 17

Our Universe has not been fine-tuned for life: life has been fine-tuned to our Universe. If the constants were different, you'd just have different forms of life.

Back 17

M

Front 18

How does an immaterial mind create and fine-tune a material universe?

Back 18

X

Front 19

Why would God want to create a fine-tuned universe?

Back 19

X

Front 20

Isn't this just God of the Gaps?

Back 20

M