The Fine Tuning Argument
The fine tuned values of the universe are just a fact accepted by a lot of physicists including Stephen Hawking
The fine tuning argument:
1:The fine tuning of the universe is due to either: physical necessity,chance,or design.
2:it's not due to physical necessity or chance
3:therefore it's due to design
Necessity:There's no reason or evidence for the claim that the fine tuned values of this universe are necessary,of course our universe could've been non-life permitting.
a non-life permitting universe is far more possible than a fine tuned universe like ours.
Chance:it is possible,but given the data we have today (The universe coming out of nothing,the law of causality,the problems with an infinite regress etc) it's very unlikely for there to be just
chance
Design:Design seems like the best explanation for the fine tuned values of the universe
The ripples in the universe left over from the original ‘Big Bang’ singularity (often referred to as CMB, or cosmic background radiation) are detectable at one part in 10^5 (100,000). If this factor were even slightly smaller, the cosmos would exist exclusively as a collection of gas, stars, planets, and galaxies would not exist. Conversely, if this factor were increased slightly, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Either way, the universe would be uninhabitable.
Another finely tuned value is the strong nuclear force that holds atoms,and therefore matter together. The sun derives its ‘fuel’ from fusing hydrogen atoms together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller, say, 0.6% instead of 0.7%,a proton would not be able to bond to a neutron and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. Without the presence of heavy elements, planets would not form and hence no life would be possible. Conversely, if the amount of matter converted were increased to 0.8% instead of 0.7%, fusion would occur so rapidly that no hydrogen would remain. Again, the result would be no planets, no solar systems and hence no life.
The ratio of electrons to protons must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^37. If this fundamental constant were to be any larger or smaller than this, the electromagnetism would dominate gravity preventing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Again, life would not be possible.
The ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^40. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our Sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements.
The rate at which the universe expands must be finely tuned to one part in 10^55. If the universe expanded too fast, the matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Also, look at earth for example,perfect distance from the sun,a little bit further we would freeze,a little bit closer we would burn.
oxygen in air 21%,change that to 25% there’s spontanious fire everywhere,15% we would suffocate.
also,let’s take a look at Jupiter,Jupiter has a very high magnetical force,Jupiter attracts the meteorites so the meteorites won’t hit us,so the meteorites won’t hit earth.
The same works for Saturn.
OBJECTIONS:
Now you might say “well we don’t know if any life would exist in other galaxies if we change some of this “fine tuned values” to 0 or whatever”,yes i am pretty sure we do,i believe you contradict most of the physicists when saying that,even atheist physicists like Hawking,i am sure we do know right now that if we changed the gravitational force or any other forces/laws a bit no life would be in the universe at all.
Also,does a big universe with almost no life in it defeat “The fine tuning argument”?:
Well no it doesn’t,the fine tuning argument is that if some numbers in the laws and forces in this universe would’ve changed a bit there would be no life at all in the whole universe including in our galaxy.
Right now let’s say you are in the Sahara desert,and there’s nothing,and then as you are walking you come across an iphone for example,laying there right in the desert floor,does that iphone require a cause/creator?
Obvious answer:yes
“If the expansion rate of the universe was different by one part in a thousand,million,million a second after the big bang,the universe would have collapsed back on itself or never developed galaxies”-Stephen Hawking
Now you might say “well in order to say that the universe had a fine-tuned beginning you are kind of assuming that galaxies are the only outcome”,i suppose you’re right in this case,but the present fined tuned values still remain
“The universe is one day gonna end so therefore the universe isn’t fined tuned”
I mean the universe is fine tuned at the moment and it can sustain life on this planet on earth,and if some numbers changed in the forces and laws in this universe it seems like there would be no life at all,so the fate of the universe does not disprove the fine tuning argument.
The multiverse argument:
1:why infinite?why not 2,why not millions
2:infinite or 2,or millions,it doesn’t matter,there must be a mechanic that creates these universes if this theory is true,but we don’t have any evidence for a mechanic like that outside of our universe,so you cannot say that a mechanic like that is the best explanation so therefore we don’t need an explanation for that mechanic.
3:if there are infinite universes,was there a first universe?and where did it come from?
4:let’s say this is true,and there are infinite universes,what’s 3 percent of an infinite?well...an infinite,so if i say right now that 3% of the infinite universes are fine tuned,then it means there is an infinite number of universes that are fine tuned,so the mechanic that makes this infinite fine tuned universes,seems to me like it must be actually more fine tuned then the universes,this kind of sounds like Richard’s “ultimate boeing 747”argument,i know,but there is no evidence for this kind of mechanic outside of our universe anyway,and i assume this kind of mechanic must be physicial,and if we take it by the big bang,the universe came from no space,no time,no matter,so it wouldn’t even be close to being close to being close to being the best explanation.
