Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?

[Fumesucker]

[edhopper]

1. More like

Life and "mind" is fine tuned to the Universe.

[Fumesucker]

3. Current theories seem to be moving toward multiple universes, perhaps an infinite number

Life develops in those universes that have the necessary physical constants and doesn't in those that don't..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[edhopper]

7. I didn't even get a chance to watch

And was jesting.

To heady for me right now. The Oscars are on.

[stone space]

2. This is an arguement that I've never managed to wrap my head around.

It strikes me just as plausible that the physical laws of the universe were fine tuned to prevent the emergence of life.

In fact, I once wrote a silly couple of paragraphs turning this idea on its head.

Maybe I'll try to find it and post it.

[Fumesucker]

4. If that were so then we wouldn't be here (if we actually are)

[stone space]

5. We're lucky.

Just like those cockroaches who manage to survive despite our best efforts.

(and yeah, maybe we aren't really here)

[stone space]

6. Does the universe have a purpose?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=129504

Purpose? Beauty, elegance, and geometric symmetry, and for God sake, try to avoid that ugly fuzz!

Our god is a young god, still in elementary school. Our universe is an art project. All of the child gods in the class have to create one, since it counts as 35% of the grade.

The universe is graded on beauty, elegance, and geometric symmetry. Creating such a universe is a daunting task, since the child gods must fine tune the physical constants and laws of the universe to acheive this, which is quite difficult, expecially for gods as young and inexperienced as our own.

The problem is this: Under almost any set of initial conditions, eventually a sort of fuzz (which we call life) will start growing within the universe. This ugly fuzz often will evolve to the point where it can perform large scale engeneering feats (building wormhole subways, etc) which will eventually affect the large scale geometric structure of the space-time continuium of the universe, thereby distroying the underlying beauty, elegance, and symmetry of the universe, and resulting in a low grade for the ugly art project.

The child-god who created our universe did his level best to create a universe where this fuzz could not evolve. He tried his best to fine tune the laws of physics so as to prevent the fuzz from messing up the universe. The god is watching its universe for any signs of our existence. Should he detect the existence of such fuzz as ourselves, he will of course distroy our universe and start over from scratch. (Our universe happens to be his 457th attempt.)

So, as far as the creation of life goes, it is unintentional, but very difficult to avoid, given the extremely delicate fine tuning of physical laws required to create a universe sufficiently sterile to have the beauty, elegance, and symmetry necessary for a good grade.

All that he can do is try his best, monitor the project carefully, and be prepared to start all over again should the need arise.

[Fumesucker]

8. Arthur Clarke had a hypothesis on that which he developed into a short story...

http://downlode.org/Etext/nine_billion_names_of_god.html

[stone space]

9. "They're made out of meat"

[skepticscott]

10. Don't have time to wade through more idiotic "fine-tuning" babble

Does he actually offer a suggestion as to who/what did the "fine tuning", and how something complex enough and capable of manipulating the universe on that level managed to arise BEFORE the fine-tuning? Is he just as clueless as everyone else about that, or does he manage to point out how bankrupt the whole notion is?

[stone space]

11. Leonard Susskind is not clueless.

I may disagree with him on this, but he is far from clueless.

[skepticscott]

12. If he makes even the merest argument

that there is evidence of "fine-tuning" without addressing the fundamental self-contradiction, then he is clueless on this issue.

[stone space]

13. Well, who is Leonard Susskind to disagree with...

...some anonymous dude on the internet with a microscope as his avatar.

That's so sciencey.

[skepticscott]

14. I didn't invent the self-contradiction

it's just there, and obvious to anyone with half a brain. If he doesn't address it, his argument is worthless. Your well-considered and eloquent take on the subject seems to be non-existent, so I'll pass on wasting more time on you.

[bvf]

15. My reaction just from the headline is,

"What?"

Bookmarked.

[stone space]

16. OK, I feel like I have to do this.

It's one thing to disagree with the guy (and I do), but denigrating his intelligence by calling him clueless is simply uncalled for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

Has the Religion Forum turned into the anti-physics and anti-mathematics forum?

[BillZBubb]

51. You are building a straw man.

Susskind may know physics and mathematics, but what he is talking about is neither of those. It is philosophical speculation. It is NOT SCIENCE.

Calling objections to his ideas anti-science is nonsense.

[stone space]

54. That's a strawman.

I'm a mathematician myself.

Calling objections to his ideas anti-science is nonsense.

I objected to his ideas above.

But objecting to his ideas is not the same thing as calling him clueless.

[BillZBubb]

57. Nope, you've got the strawman. Quit with the semantics.

It isn't anti-science to call a scientist, or anyone else for that matter, clueless with respect to a non-scientific hypothesis. On this matter Susskind does appear clueless--or at least very easily able to ignore and abandon the scientific method.

[edhopper]

17. Not the first time a great scientist

Took a wrong turn.

Look at Pauling and Vitamin C.

[skepticscott]

18. You'd think an alleged mathematician would

know the fallacy of Argument from Authority, and would know the difference between saying that someone is a complete, goat-footed moron, and simply saying that they are clueless on one specific issue.

Look at Newton and alchemy and theology.

[edhopper]

21. You might well think that,

I couldn't possibly comment.

[Lordquinton]

23. You think people would see the irony in defending someone on intellectual grounds

then turn around and bashing Dawkins.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. But but! He said something offensive! Well, it wasn't really offensive but it was quoted

in such a way as to make it misconstruable as something offensive! And that's pretty much the same thing.

[rogerashton]

19. The anthropic principle.

Using Bayes' law of probabilities, the probability that the universe is fine-tuned for life seems quite high. Of course, Bayes was a parson, as well as a mathematician.

[edhopper]

20. Yes it's easy

When you start with the conclusion.

[Leontius]

22. He doesn't seem to have started with a conclusion but this is where he's saying

that the evolution of string theory has lead.

[edhopper]

32. Who says that

Susskind?

I was talking about Bayes.

[rogerashton]

25. It is true

that Bayes' Law requires a judgment of a priori probability, which may be subjective, and if the a priori probability is one or zero, no evidence will ever influence your opinions. If, for example, your subjective judgment is that the probability that God exists is zero, then no evidence can modify that judgment via Bayes' law.

That is what you meant, isn't it?

[edhopper]

31. If you are only using mathematics to solve for something

within those parameters, I guess that is true.

Though in scientific inquiry, one usually starts with a theory based on current evidence and looks for further evidence to confirm or reject it. (simplistically put)

In my personal experience, I don't know any atheist that say no evidence would modify their view that God does not exist. It would require extraordinary evidence, but they would be open to look.

On the other hand, I have seen believers say that no evidence would ever make them think God does not exists.

[trotsky]

27. Douglas Adams put it so well.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[Promethean]

24. Yawn.

More "proving" god with words and pointing to things we've discovered through hard work instead of actually demonstrating god. All these stupid theological arguments wouldn't even be necessary if god could be clearly demonstrated in any way. Instead all we get is linguistic gymnastics trying to parley concepts or observations about the universe into "see look its god!"

[Fumesucker]

26. Eh, I'm a fairly "hard" atheist and I found it interesting

Not convincing but definitely interesting, I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

[cpwm17]

29. Me too

I'm almost sure that Leonard Susskind and many other cosmologists are on the right track.

Everything that we know about nature strongly indicate that that some form of a multiverse exists (Leonard Susskind doesn't like that term.)

-nature doesn't make things in ones, as far as we know. That is why there is predictability and order in our Universe and science is possible.

-the same type of explanation works as to why life is possible on our planet.

-it is a cop-out to say that 'shit-happens' is a good explanation as to why life is possible in our Universe, when the number of potentially possible universes that cannot support life is astronomically greater.

[rogerashton]

30. I find it odd

that people who find it unreasonable to believe in God, because there can be no evidence that would prove the existence of a God, nevertheless find it reasonable to believe in an infinite set of alternate universes, despite the fact that, because they are separate universes, no evidence can prove their existence. The two ideas seem (at best) equally mystical to me. Not that i'm opposed to mysticism, understand, or that I personally believe either of them.

NB evidence for quantum uncertainty is NOT evidence for a multiverse. Quite the contrary, really -- the multiverse is a way of interpreting quantum uncertainty to eliminate the uncertainty. But where is the evidence to support the interpretation?

[cpwm17]

33. The more we learn about our Universe

the larger it gets. It is not inventing a whole new reality to claim there is much beyond our visible universe. It is more of what we already know.

Also, to claim there is more beyond what we already know, even if the properties are not identical to our own, is still not a completely different reality.

If the properties of our Universe were just changed in any of a number of ways by just a tiny fraction, our Universe would have been very different, and life probably would not have been able to evolve here. Base on what we already know of nature, it is reasonable to assume that the best explanation for our seemingly "fine-tuned' Universe is that there is much beyond our visible Universe. The reality that produced our "Big Bang" likely produced many others. That how nature tends to work: nature doesn't make things in ones. No miracles are required.

A god is a miraculous explanation for our existence. It would be a whole new reality that would also need an explanation, plus we would need an explanation on how this god created our Universe. A god is a giant step backwards from an explanation for our existence.

[rogerashton]

34. Both are in the same logical frame.

To use the word "miraculous" to discredit one of the two hypotheses is arbitrary. Mystics (especially in the Hindu tradition, I believe) have long speculated that there might be many universes. For them, I guess, the multiverse would be miraculous.

"Much beyond the visible universe" is a bit of a fudge. The problem is that these "regions" are not just beyond the visible universe, but beyond the detectable universe; that, as the interview says, we have only "theoretical" (that is, speculative) reasons to suppose they exist. These alternative universes are attributed to "quantum fluctuations." This is one possible interpretation of the quantum math -- but not the only one. The multiverse interpretation is that when the wave-front collapses, both or all possibilities are realized in alternative universes. The other interpretation is that only one possibility is realized, but which possibility is indeterminate. The point of the multiverse story is that it makes physics deterministic, and many physicists "like" that better. But is there any justification -- either in evidence or reason -- for supposing the world is deterministic? I don't know of one. The multiverse turns out to be a matter of preference, nothing more.

[cpwm17]

36. Specific claims concerning the multiverse are speculative and beyond our current science

including the Many Worlds explanation for quantum mechanics:

That seems extremely far-fetched to me.

But what appears to me to be the fact that since there was a previously existing reality (previous to the Big Bang, or at least a reality that the Big Bang came from) with a physics that was able to create our Universe, I see no reason that the same reality couldn't produce many other universes. That is always the case with scientific experiments here in our known world: if something can't be replicated, we assume it didn't happen in the first place.

[rogerashton]

39. and that seems a further step into mysticism to me.

Not that that is a bad thing!

[cpwm17]

41. It's on the boarder between science and philosophy.

Perhaps some year some scientists will find an experiment that can test this hypothesis. Since it isn't falsifiable, it currently isn't real science.

[cpwm17]

28. Many have not watched the video.

As scientists, many of the world's best cosmologists are looking for the best solutions as to why our Universe (or at least our part of our Universe) has the conditions such that life is possible. To most scientists, a 'shit happens' explanation is not adequate, as that attitude would destroy science.

If many of the constants of physics were just changed by a very small amount, life would be impossible in our Universe. It is equivalent to the many conditions that need to be met for there to be life on an individual planet in our Universe. Our "fine-tuned" planet is strong evidence that there are many more planets beyond our own. The same principle works with our Universe (or our part of our Universe.) There is very likely much beyond our Universe or our section of our Universe, and it is no coincidence that we live in a Universe or a section of our Universe that can support life.

That's a simple scientific explanation for "the fine-tuned Universe."

[skepticscott]

35. Here's one of several fundamental flaws with the argument

If many of the constants of physics were just changed by a very small amount, life would be impossible in our Universe.

A basically dishonest statement. The honest and accurate statement would be "...matter and life in the forms we see them would be impossible in our Universe". Not only can no one make a defensible claim of "impossibility" (an extremely high burden of proof in empirical science) for all possible forms and manner of "life", but the whole notion requires a form of life that can arise without fine-tuning, in order to do the fine tuning in the first place. And if that form of life could appear without "fine-tuning", why not the forms we see?

[cpwm17]

37. No, life would be impossible with small changes to any one of a number of the constants of nature

such that chemistry couldn't be possible or the Universe would have flown quickly apart or would have instantly collapsed into a black hole, etc.

No, there is no fine-tuner. That is a big point of the Multiverse theory in the first place: it eliminates supernatural explanations for the existence of life in our Universe.

[skepticscott]

38. What you're afraid to say is

"Chemistry as we currently know it in our universe".

Thanks for confirming that you didn't understand a word of what you were responding to.

[cpwm17]

40. A response with a personal insult

a big surprise coming from you.

No, the scientific consensus is that chemistry wouldn't be possible with minor changes in some of the constants of nature. I understood what you wrote.

[skepticscott]

44. Nice try, but horseshit

The so-called "scientific consensus" is that chemistry AS WE KNOW IT, with protons, electrons and the periodic table, wouldn't be possible with minor changes in some of the constants of nature. There is no consensus that it would be completely and utterly impossible for other realities to form with other types of particles that we can't even conceive and chemistries totally unlike what we call chemistry.

I defy you to show otherwise…and that's what's necessary for a claim of "impossible". If you don't understand that, then no…you have no clue about what I wrote.

[cpwm17]

50. The constants of nature could be adjusted to create other chemistries that could potentially

allow life to evolve. In a multiverse, there is a good chance that these other such universes exist. Plus, there could many other realities that we can never imagine. But the great majority of theoretically potential combinations of the constants of nature could never allow for any life to evolve anywhere in the potential universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life....

Examples:
Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.

N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.

Epsilon ε, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.

Omega Ω, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the Universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

Lambda λ is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the Universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the Universe is too violent, according to Rees.

D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4....

The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, we are, by definition, in a hospitable universe.

Even in our Universe, life is very likely thinly scattered, and our Universe does allow complex chemistry. We do evolve to the conditions on our planet, but evolution isn't magic and the conditions on most planets can likely never evolve life, and certainly not intelligent life. But due to the fact that there are so many planets in our Universe, we inevitably live on a nice stable planet orbiting around a star that is several generations old, such that our planet has a large variety of chemical elements that have been born in the deaths of previous generations of stars. These chemicals have allowed life to evolve.

Our Universe plays a lot of lottery tickets and our planet is a lottery winner. Theists not understanding that our Universe plays a lot of lottery tickets claim that our "fine-tuned" planet is evidence of a god.

It seems very likely that there is a multiverse that also plays a lot of lottery tickets. That is a simple solution to the seemingly "fine-tuned" Universe – no far-fetched coincidences or invisible superheros needed.

[skepticscott]

52. Which directly contradicts your previous BS claim

No, the scientific consensus is that chemistry wouldn't be possible with minor changes in some of the constants of nature

Thanks for making my point..not that it needed to be made again. Understanding does seem to have dawned for you.

[cpwm17]

53. Do you have insult tourette syndrome?

This is a fun conversation about the nature of the Universe and you keep making weird unprovoked insults.

If you make minor changes to the constants of nature, chemistry wouldn't be possible in the great majority of cases, and the chemistry as we know it wouldn't be possible at all. Another set of constants that could potentially allow for their own chemistry would also need to be "fine-tuned". You can't just pick a random set of constants and expect to a get a reality that allows for the evolution of life.

This 'fine-tuning" is a clue about the nature of reality that shouldn't just be ignored. The multiverse is a good explanation. Some scientists have suggested other explanations. There is something going on that any good cosmologist should consider. A provable answer may not be possible.

[gcomeau]

42. Considering that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999......%

...of the universe (with a LOT more 9's on that number) is instantly lethal to all known forms of "life" and "mind".

No. Obviously.

Unless whatever tuned it is an idiot.

[Fumesucker]

43. The point being it could easily be 100%

[gcomeau]

45. Yes. Which doesn't alter the fact...

...that looking at a universe that is instantly lethal to life in almost every square inch of it's effectively infinite expanse and declaring it was "tuned for life" is every bit as idiotic as looking in a closed roof stadium flooded with poison gas and antibiotics, finding a surviving microbe under a floor mat in the sub-basement after a long and extensive search, and declaring that the stadium was designed to grow microbes.

[Fumesucker]

46. We really have no idea how common life might be in the universe..

As I pointed out upthread I'm partial to the anthropic principle but I don't dismiss anything else completely out of hand.

[gcomeau]

47. True

But we know where it isn't.

And even just looking at the local regions we've already eliminated it from that giant 99.999999999999999999......% number still applies.

So based on *everything we know* about the universe the idea it was fine tuned for life is freaking absurd.

[Fumesucker]

48. It's in a lot of places on this planet that no one really expected..

Bacteria that thrive in nuclear reactors for instance..

Also the building blocks of carbon based life are being found in deep space, possible evidence of life in some meteorites and so on..

I'm not even sure we would recognize a really different form of life at all without being beaten about the head and shoulders with it.

[gcomeau]

49. Which is like saying...

...the microbes were on a lot of threads on the bottom of that mat.

[cpwm17]

59. The point of the video isn't that the Universe is "fine-tuned" for life

but that there may be a multiverse which explains way our Universe has the potential to produce life when the vast majority of theoretically potential universes couldn't ever produce life at all. To many, that is more than a strange coincidence.

The reason we were ever able to evolve here is due to the fact there is a huge Universe out there with billions of trillions of planets, and we, not coincidentally live on one that is friendly to life. But it doesn't stop there. There is some underlying reason why our Universe can produce planets with the potential to evolve life. A popular hypothesis among cosmologists is that there is a huge multivese, and we naturally live in a universe that can evolve life. There is no "fine-tuning."

[stone space]

56. Nobody's perfect. (nt)

[stone space]

55. Just more support for my "theory"...

...above that the physical parameters of the universe were designed specifically to prevent life from emerging.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. I find his argument problematic from the beginning...

The issue at heart is this assumption that the universe is fine tuned at all, particularly considering that the vast majority of it is uninhabitable. In addition, we lack both context and information as to how wide a range can possibly exist to still allow life and intelligence to arrive in the universe under different constants. Not to mention that life may arise not out of long chain carbon reactions but other reactions, with elements of slightly different properties, or things of this nature in a universe that isn't conductive to our life.

Its chauvinistic, to be frank about it, and it makes too many assumptions about what parameters are required for life to arise in a universe, the nature of that life, whether its intelligent, and our own knowledge of the universe we live in.

[cpwm17]

61. Here's Lawrence Krauss' take on the Anthropic Principal:

?

He thinks it's possible though he doesn't particularly like it.

[edhopper]

62. It looks like

The Universe is fine tuned for large groups of light producing fire balls.