Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Forbes: Fine-tuning really is a problem for cosmology, about which nothing can be done

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

Because those are the Rules:

The whole point of a fine-tuning argument isn’t to declare that we have a weird coincidence, and therefore anything that explains this coincidence is likely to be right. Rather, it points us to the various ways we might think about an otherwise unexplained puzzle, to try and provide a physical explanation for a phenomenon that has no obvious cause.

In science, our goal is to describe everything we observe or measure in the Universe through natural, physical explanations alone.

What if the explanation is actually outside the universe? What if the explanation for how a novel came to be written lies outside the novel?

When we see what appears to be a cosmic coincidence, we owe it to ourselves to examine every possible physical cause of that coincidence, as one of them might lead to the next great breakthrough. That doesn’t mean you should credit (or blame) a particular theory or idea without further evidence, but the possible solutions we can theorize do tell us where it might be smart to look.

As always, we have strict requirements for any such theory to be accepted, which includes reproducing all the successes of the previous leading theory, explaining these new puzzles, and also making new predictions about observable, measurable quantities that we can test. Until a new idea succeeds on all three fronts, it’s only speculation. But that speculation is still incredibly valuable. If we don’t engage in it, we’ve already given up on discovering new fundamental truths about our reality. Ethan Siegel, “Fine-Tuning Really Is A Problem In Physics” at Forbes

If the evidence strongly suggests fine-tuning, the most likely explanation is that it is a set of givens, from outside the universe we actually study. Sadly, cosmologists engage in nonsense speculations about a multiverse, for which there is no evidence and maybe never can be because they cannot accept the evidence that exists. Maybe that is the cause of the current stalemates around dark matter and antimatter.

So here’s where it stands: They’re compelled to stumble and make up nonsense and the rest of us are compelled to support them, cheer them on, and accept the dismal outcome, forever if need be.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Forbes’ cosmology commentator: Maybe we ARE alone

Why does matter, nbot antimatter, dominate the universe? We don’t know.


What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Isn't this the obvious answer? 1) What Top Scientists say: In science, our goal is to describe everything we observe or measure in the Universe through natural, physical explanations alone. 2.) Question: What if the explanation is actually outside the universe? 3) Obvious Answer: Top Scientists claim that science isn't concerned with what is true.chris haynes
April 9, 2019
08:57 AM
Not for cosmology as a whole, just for those models that preclude ID from consideration. Which happen to include all of modern cosmology , but not all models, such as SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.. As that would be like saying useful complexity is a problem for biology. That is true if one limits self to current consensus NDT Neo-Darwin doctrine box. It is not a problem w/in valid, internally consistent ID models, such as the Moshe Emes 'RCCF' framework for understanding science.Pearlman
April 7, 2019
02:49 PM

Leave a Reply