This page has moved to a new address.

Debunking the "Fine Tuning" argument

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Debunking the "Fine Tuning" argument

To debunk this argument we must first understand what it is stating. The basic premise of the argument is that the physical constants are to improbable to have occurred by chance and that if you altered even one of them from their current "settings", the results would be catastrophic. A fundamental error is made here which is that they are saying that you can change one constant whilst leaving the rest intact. Essentially you are randomizing one constant while not doing the same to the others. But lets ignore that fact and assume that you are randomizing all the physical constants. We still don't know that our specific constants are, in fact, to unlikely to occur by chance. As Richard Dawkins put it, "We may soon find that the variability of the constants is as static as the relationship between pi and a circle's circumference". But again we will take the leap of faith made by this argument and assume that our set is equally likely to occur as any other possible permutation. Our set of physical constants is the best possible one for making black holes. Meaning that if you changed the values of any of the constants, black holes would not be formed as easily as they are in this universe. Does that mean that god loves black holes just a wee bit more than he loves us?
Secondly, still making the assumption that all the values could be chosen randomly mind you, Fred Adams shows that when you randomize the starting conditions of the early universe ie randomize the values of the physical constants, 25% of the time you can still get a universe that can support stars and thus life. Although 25% is not a majority, it is in no way "to unlikely to occur by chance".

Moving on, there are four fundamental forces of nature; the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These are all forces that play some important role in the universe. Roni Harnick and his colleagues have shown that a universe that can form stars and thus life can exist even if the weak nuclear force is removed. Kinda takes God outta the mix don't you think?
I will post links to some nice videos on the subject here:

CDK007's take

What Dr. Richard Carrier has to say on the matter

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's remarks



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home