Physical Laws - Best Case for ID?

[eri]

I attended an interesting talk last night. Although the professor giving the talk stated firmly from the get-go that he didn't believe in ID and opposed teaching it in schools (to the general applause of the room), he then proceeded to tell us the best case for ID that could be presented - but has been generally ignored by the IDers. Most of it originally came from Hoyle, a physicist in the 60's.

Here's the idea. The universe seems especially designed for our form of life in the most basic sense - in the physical laws of the universe, universal laws that apply everywhere at all times from the very beginning. He went on to show that slight changes in basic physical laws and constants will have disasterous consequences for life. The examples he used were the basic charge of an electron, the nuclear force, and the cosmological constant, and stressed that these were just examples, and pretty much any law could have been selected. Consequences ranged from changing binding energies to the point where our cells could no longer stay together, to making it impossible for our Sun to radiate, to having a universe that never forms past hydrogen.

The argument is, how did these basic laws come into being in the forms they are to make it possible for us to evolve in the first place? Why is the Coloumb force k*q1*q2/r^2 and not r^2.1? Even if we couldn't measure many basic physical quantities, we could derive what they HAVE to be in order for us to be here. Given all possible combinations of physical laws, how probable is it for a universe to be formed that can support us? One calculation was 1 in 10^16 universes could support us.

Multi-universe theories are still in their infancy and are largely untestable, but seem to be the only good answer aside from 'God did it'.

I don't believe 'God did it' either, but I found the idea fascinating. The best I could come up with as an answer is, if the universe WASN'T perfectly suited for us in it's basic laws, we wouldn't be here to ask 'why not?'.

Anyone else?

 

[T'ai Chi]

The argument is, how did these basic laws come into being in the forms they are to make it possible for us to evolve in the first place? Why is the Coloumb force k*q1*q2/r^2 and not r^2.1? Even if we couldn't measure many basic physical quantities, we could derive what they HAVE to be in order for us to be here. Given all possible combinations of physical laws, how probable is it for a universe to be formed that can support us? One calculation was 1 in 10^16 universes could support us.

You might find the arguments in the book Privileged Planet, by Gonzalez and Richards interesting.

They talk about things like that, and put forth the idea that we find life on places ideal for making scientific discoveries, and hence to them implies a purpose or designer.

 

[Mercutio]

Just for fun...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[Dancing David]

The problem with the argument is that you can use the formulas and then drive them to the point of collapse and see what values in the formulas would actualy cause a break in the syetm. I read somewhere that there could be considerable variation of all the laws except for the strong force which can only be modified some fraction like 30% before the processes screw up.

This is also called ethnocentrism, unitl we can leave our universe to see what other universes look like it is all speculation. One of the whacky aspects of inflationary theory is that budding universes have a quasi evolutionary aspect to them, in that there are budding universes that lead to more budding universes, and those that don'. But that was some sort of pop science interpretation.

 

[fishbait]

They talk about things like that, and put forth the idea that we find life on places ideal for making scientific discoveries, and hence to them implies a purpose or designer.

Other than Earth, what places have we found life on?

Name a place that isn't ideal for scientific discoveries.

This idea that "we are a way for the universe to know itself" explains nothing.

 

[kevin]

The universe seems especially designed for our form of life in the most basic sense

Seems backwards to me. We're designed for the universe we exist in. Once life arose natural selection ensures that we must be able to survive in the universe around us or we will be killed off before reproducing. Before life arose only chemical reactions that follow the laws of the universe could take place, therefore when one of these reactions that leads to life occurs it must follow the rules of the universe.

He went on to show that slight changes in basic physical laws and constants will have disasterous consequences for life.

Which life? Life that currently exists in this universe perhaps. But did he also prove that any type of life would be impossible in these other universes? Are the laws we have the only ones that can support any form of life.

there are theories that postulate the existance of more than one universe (Membrane theory?), if this is true then it may turn out that life arose in this universe because it could, others may not be so lucky, and still others may have totally different life because their laws are different.

 

[eri]

This is also called ethnocentrism, unitl we can leave our universe to see what other universes look like it is all speculation. One of the whacky aspects of inflationary theory is that budding universes have a quasi evolutionary aspect to them, in that there are budding universes that lead to more budding universes, and those that don'. But that was some sort of pop science interpretation.

I've heard about the multi-universe theories in my grad classes, but they all seem to be stuck at the speculation phase - there's no way to test them, or even observe them if they are true in some cases.

I suppose the real question is, why don't the IDers use this argument? They seem stuck on evolutionary theory and are easily proven wrong in their arguments, but this argument is much more interesting and less disprovable - or at least it seemed to the room full of physicists listening to it yesterday.

 

[eri]

Which life? Life that currently exists in this universe perhaps. But did he also prove that any type of life would be impossible in these other universes? Are the laws we have the only ones that can support any form of life.

Yes, this occurred to me as well. However, I can't imagine life of any sort forming in a universe where matter can't stay held together, where stars can't produce energy, where complex elements can't form. I think that was his point when he said there were only certain values these constants could take.

 

[...JR]

The best I could come up with as an answer is, if the universe WASN'T perfectly suited for us in it's basic laws, we wouldn't be here to ask 'why not?'.

this seems to be the best argument. After all, if the forces of nature happened to give rise to different life forms altogether, THEY would be the ones (if intelligent enough) to be asking these very same questions....


the only hindrence (sp?) to this argument is the idea of hindsight being 20/20...but either way, it seems we and all other life are here because nature happened to work itself out the way it did, and we should be happy for that if nothing else.

 

[eri]

...but either way, it seems we and all other life are here because nature happened to work itself out the way it did, and we should be happy for that if nothing else.

But I want to know whhhhyyyyyy (complains a bit, then remembers she's 25 and stops).

From the Wikipedia article (thanks!) :

According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing.

Well, that's a relief. I'd ask how he got that, but I'm afraid I'll never understand it, even if I do manage to finish this PhD.

 

[chipmunk stew]

this seems to be the best argument. After all, if the forces of nature happened to give rise to different life forms altogether, THEY would be the ones (if intelligent enough) to be asking these very same questions....


the only hindrence (sp?) to this argument is the idea of hindsight being 20/20...but either way, it seems we and all other life are here because nature happened to work itself out the way it did, and we should be happy for that if nothing else.

I like the image of throwing a dart at the wall, circling the spot where it hit, and then marvelling about how improbable it was that the dart landed in that circle.

 

[kevin]

Yes, this occurred to me as well. However, I can't imagine life of any sort forming in a universe where matter can't stay held together, where stars can't produce energy, where complex elements can't form. I think that was his point when he said there were only certain values these constants could take.

I can imagine one (a universe where everything, even life, is energy) but I read lots of science fiction. Not sure one is actually possible.

 

[Z]

This is the line that always kills me:

The universe seems especially designed for our form of life...

Really? The universe

In all the universe, the only planet and star system that we are aware of that's capable of fostering and supporting life is this one, and then only in a thin strata of the planet's atmosphere and crust. When you get right down to it, the universe is very hostile towards 'life'.

 

[tsg]

He went on to show that slight changes in basic physical laws and constants will have disasterous consequences for life.

For life as we know it. There is nothing that says that life couldn't exist at all. We know very little about what is actually required for life to exist. In fact, our ideas about that have been challenged severely by where we have found life on this planet, and may be challenged further by what we find on Europa.

The examples he used were the basic charge of an electron, the nuclear force, and the cosmological constant, and stressed that these were just examples, and pretty much any law could have been selected. Consequences ranged from changing binding energies to the point where our cells could no longer stay together, to making it impossible for our Sun to radiate, to having a universe that never forms past hydrogen.

Wouldn't our universe then simply be a matter of natural selection? It exists because it was suited to survive? And we exist here rather than somewhere else because it was suited for life to form? But who's to say that life can't exist in a universe where the physical laws are drastically different? We just don't know enough to make that kind of conclusion.

One calculation was 1 in 10^16 universes could support us.

That number is only meaningful if the number of total universes is known. It may sound hugely unlikely, but if there are 10^32 universes (or attempted universes) it's not unlikely at all.

I don't believe 'God did it' either, but I found the idea fascinating. The best I could come up with as an answer is, if the universe WASN'T perfectly suited for us in it's basic laws, we wouldn't be here to ask 'why not?'.

The end result is that we are the way we are because the universe is the way the universe is and not the other way around. Because we require a certain characteristic out of an environment to survive is not an indication that life in general also requires the same characteristic. If the temperature of our planet never varied by more than 2 degrees[1], a swing of 10 degrees could well kill us because we wouldn't have developed with a need to endure wide temperature swings. But here we are surviving in an atmosphere where the temperatures can swing in excess of 20 degF from day to night and over 100 from summer to winter.

Claiming the unlikelyhood of our existence as evidence of design is pointing at the number that was picked out of a billion possibilities and being amazed at the odds of that particular number coming up. Some number was going to. Unless you picked it before hand, there is nothing amazing about 457,284,016 coming up as opposed to 457,254,017 or, say, 3. Like chipmunk said: it's drawing bull's eyes around darts you've already thrown.

[1] Imagine the Earth's axis was not tilted. These same people would be claiming how necessary a non-tilted axis is for life to form ("an incline of just SMALLNUM would result in temperature changes of BIGNUM[2] which would surely make life impossible!").

[2] Big compared to what they would have on a non-tilted Earth.

 

[RichardR]

So since it’s highly improbable the universe happened by accident, the argument is that God must have created the universe. But an assumption is that the probability of God spontaneously creating itself out of nothing is greater. So how likely is it that a supernatural deity with omniscient and omnipotent powers, randomly appeared out of nothing and created the whole universe by magic? Wouldn’t the probability of that be zero?

 

[Art Vandelay]

If two were equal to three, then life wouldn't be able to exist. What's the probability that two would be equal to two?

The idea that we can assign "probabilities" to these things is absurd.

 

[steenkh]

As I see it, the anthropic principle tells us that when the universe is all we have, then we cannot infere that it was made just for us.

The lottery ticket that I have in my hand is 4663890014. The chance that I would have got exactly this ticket is minimal, but yet, there it is! However, this does not mean that the ticket is a winner.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why is the Coloumb force k*q1*q2/r^2 and not r^2.1?

Because the area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Name a place that isn't ideal for scientific discoveries.

I'd imagine a place with a dense atmosphere, for example, wouldn't be as ideal for viewing the stars.

 

[Dragon]

I think the famous philosopher D.N.Adams put it best -

. . . 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!'