This chapter explores the fine-tuning of physical laws and constants crucial for the existence and complexity of life in the universe. It examines the delicate balance required for life, potential alternative forms, and emphasizes the importance of grounded scientific definitions.
00:00
Transcript
Episode notes
An atheist response to fine-tuning: a super intellect ‘monkeying’ with the physics, a cosmic computer simulation, the multiverse hypothesis, and “the Gambler’s Fallacy.”
So far, we’ve heard from five different university-trained scholars with theistic worldviews about fine-tuning of the universe: a Christian astronomer, a Jewish mathematician/physicist duo, a Christian astrophysicist, and a Christian theologian/philosopher. In this episode, we’ll hear from another university-trained astrophysicist on the same subject, but this one describing himself as a card-carrying atheist … and who nonetheless agrees that the data strongly suggests the universe is indeed fine-tuned. Dr. Geraint Lewis grew up in Wales, was a science junky from the time he could first read, who later found he was good with mathematics and physics, and eventually found himself as a Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy. And he firmly accepts fine-tuning … but without a “Tuner”!?
We first checked if he means something different than our other five guests, when he refers to “fine-tuning.” He too points to the fundamental constants of the universe: he agrees that scientists have discovered equations which explain various aspects of the universe, through a process of contemplation, reasoning and scratching away on chalkboards, but those equations have certain constants that can’t be derived in any way …. they just have to be measured.
For example, almost everyone has heard of Einstein’s famous equation: E=mc2. Reasoning alone drives him (and them) to two conclusions: that energy and matter are interchangeable (we said in our introductory episode that matter is a frozen form of energy), and that the amount of energy (“E” in the equation) in a chunk of matter depends on the amount of mass in that chunk (“m” in the equation). That makes sense! But the conversion factor between energy and mass is defined by a constant — the speed of light (“c” in the equation) — which can’t be derived from any equation or reasoning. It just has to be posited, and then measured and accepted at face value. Why? Why that constant?
(As an aside, for me this is an example of a scientific equation that is so elegant and provocative that it makes one’s jaw drop. I mean, energy measured in units of joules or kilowatt hours or tons of TNT being determined by one thing measured in grams and another thing measured in meters per second!? Really!?)
Dr. Lewis agrees completely (as do astrophysicists of all stripes) that when you put those equations into a computer model of the universe and then tweak some of the constants just a little bit, the model collapses — in our metaphor from a few weeks back, the pencil standing on its sharpened tip falls over — and you no longer get a universe with a Periodic Table. And thus, no life.
We asked Geraint to give us an insider’s perspective on Sir Fred Hoyle, the world-renowned astronomer with a deeply atheistic worldview who rejected the Big Bang hypothesis because it “gave too much to the Creationists” but nonetheless also said: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has ‘monkeyed’ with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology.” Getting a fuller understanding of the context of Hoyle’s words, it seems to me that Creationists may have added a bit too much spin to both stories.
We also asked him about non-theistic explanations for fine-tuning. He said some non-theists entertain the possibility that we might be part of some kind of cosmic computer simulation, while others opt for the multiverse hypothesis. We asked: if by definition we can’t get any real-world evidence for a multiverse (because it’s outside of our own universe), can this really be called science, or is it a faith statement? And also: isn’t appealing to the multiverse hypothesis committing the “inverse Gambler’s Fallacy.” You’ll need to hear the episode to know what that Fallacy is all about … and Geraint’s response to both push-backs.
