Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Shocka! New Scientist says fine tuning of universe cannot be ignored. But wait…


From Geraint Lewis at New Scientist:

A fundamental concept is coming back to the fore – that the universe may be fine-tuned for life. The idea is that physical laws and constants are inexplicably just right to support it; any different and we wouldn’t be around to ponder this.

The notion that this might be so has been around for decades, but has sat on the sidelines, considered idle speculation or even outside the bounds of science.

This article is carefully written, so as to undermine the facts and promote multiverse blather. Otherwise, it would not be in New Scientist at all.

Underlying all of these potential explanations are serious philosophical questions. Is adopting the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning even science as we traditionally understand it, given that we can never experience other universes and hence never really test this explanation experimentally? And would this new definition of science, with the unseen and the untestable, bring it too close to religion for the comfort of most?

Does anyone use a standard like that to determine what to believe about anything else whatever? If you get coshed on the head and have your wallet stolen, and end up in the ER, will you tell the police it was an accident?

The apparent fine-tuning of the physical laws for complexity and life remains one of the peculiarities of our universe. We might be simply part of a much larger, much weirder multiverse, but to adopt this view of the cosmos might mean we have to change our notion of what science is – and that would be hard. Expect a lot more debate.More.

There is no evidence whatever for universes other than our own. New Scientist is the Pravda of science. Increasingly, popular science news is becoming Pravda vs. samizdat,

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Is there not an almost infinitely greater likelihood of a universe by absolute necessity, tuned to such a welter of disparate and rigorously-precise calibrations, being designed - inevitably, by a super-intellect, though that's not relevant - than something that quacks, swims and waddles like a duck, actually being a duck ? I would surmise by almost infinite orders of magnitude. An oi bain't be a scointist. Wake up atheist Christmases .... or 'Happy Holidayers', if you must..... Axel
A Creator could create a multiverse. By definition. Word. Sneeze a multiverse. God bless you. Yes, a multiverse could create a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Wear your colander with pride. Driver license photo yay. ppolish
We have the observation that if the values of certain fundamental constants varied by even a small amount this Universe could not exist. We have an hypothesis concerning a possible multiverse which is untestable according to our present understanding. At this time, it appears to be speculative at best. We have the epithet of "fine tuning" which is preferred by some because it conveys the implication if a Fine Tuner, although it is no more warranted than the multiverse. We still don't have any idea of why and how it actually all began. Seversky
The amazing fine-tuning of the Universe for life was virtually impossible to have occurred mindlessly and accidentally. To attempt to get around this atheistic science has proposed multiverse theory. The idea is that there is a virtually infinite number of universes, one of which had to win the life-supporting-universe lottery. The problem is that there is not and cannot be evidence for other universes; our scientific observation is restricted to this universe. Atheists are fond of comparing belief in God with belief in a flying spaghetti monster; they claim there is as much evidence for one as the other. Now atheists are asking us to believe in an infinite number of flying-spaghetti-monster universes. It requires much less faith to believe in one God instead, and the faith required for that is a small, very reasonable faith, not the huge, irrational, blind faith required by atheism. harry
Whatever Lewis' purpose is in the New scientist piece his book, co-authored with cosmologist Luke Barnes and titled A Fortunate Universe, is an excellent presentation of the facts of cosmic fine-tuning. The two authors simply present the science and leave their divergent opinions of the metaphysical implications of the facts for the last chapter. It's a good read. Dick
It is more than not ignoring fine tuning - it is not ignoring that chance can't account for it. Chance has been ruled out. That is causing the heartburn. ppolish

Leave a Reply