Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: July 21, 2023 01:40PM
Can this possibly be a coincidence?
COMMENT: Of course. Suppose you toss a fair coin a hundred times and you get all heads. What can you *logically* or mathematically infer? From such an ordered improbability alone you cannot conclude that such result is other than a coincidence, because every other alternative outcome was equally improbable. (Every other assumption, for example fraud, or God, incorporates human expectations based upon underlying probability laws.) Same here. The parameters of the constants are what they are, and we are here to measure them, that's it. How it might have been otherwise is unknown because there is no known method to establish the underlying reality that would govern such probabilities.
But notice we can still ask, "Why are the parameters of these constants what they are, individually and jointly?" That is NOT a stupid, or unscientific, question, but only metaphysically complicated. Maybe there are underlying meta-laws of nature that dictated such result. But then, what is the source of such laws. If the laws themselves are random, from where does this randomness arise? There must be an underlying physical context in order for randomness to apply. (Note: you might say that the randomness arose from mathematics alone, but then you are committed to the fundamental reality of numbers, and their causal efficacy in bringing about the physical world. Theories that postulate "information" as the underlying source of the universe (Wheeler's "It from Bit.") are similarly situated; taking a non-physical, abstract concept and giving it magical powers to create something physical.)
From big bang cosmology, it is claimed that the universe arose "out of nothing." If that is literally true, then its laws and parameters could not be random, for reasons just stated. Otherwise, it would be like saying that your coin-flipping ratio appeared out of nowhere; no coins or flipping needed.
Given the above, the source of any physical laws in the universe, and the constants and parameters associated therewith, is a complete mystery. Filling in that mystery is where the "anthropic principle" (The scientific name given for this discussion) arguably holds sway. Given that the universe is orderly, and governed by law, there must be some non-random sufficient reason why it is what it is. The argument that the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life fills this void. The fact that the universe *is* 'fine-tuned' for life is indisputable. On this view, life provides the why, but not in a context of a non-randomness argument. For theists, God provides the ultimate source.
This is where cosmologists bring in the argument for a multiverse, with what is called the "weak anthropic principle." The fine-tuned parameters of nature for life are acknowledged, but now are indeed deemed random, because now we have multiple universes from which to draw such randomness. Hossenfelder cites Stuart Kauffman favorably when discussing complexity, but she should add this quote as specifically related to the anthropic principle:
"The weak anthropic principle, with its possibility of multiple universes, raises troubling questions about how well our scientists are adhering to the fundamentals of science. If we are to postulate multiple universes yet can have no access to them and cannot confirm their existence, have we actually explained anything at all? Perhaps someday we will manage to find evidence of multiple universes. Until then, the weak anthropic principle seems to stand on shaky evidentiary grounds." (Stuart Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, p. 30)
Now, watch the Hossenfelder video again with the above in mind. She misunderstands the nature of the strong anthropic argument.
(For a readable account of all this, see Paul Davies, *The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the universe just right for life?* (2006)