Fine-tuning of the constants AND equations of Nature?
| November 16, 2008 | Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design |
The Schrodinger partial differential equation of quantum mechanics is the heart of atomic physics. This elegant PDE governs the behavior of all particles under the fundamental forces, but, unlike other PDEs, it cannot be derived from simpler principles. Like time, space, matter and energy, it “just is”. To quote from one of my PDE books, “Schrodinger’s equation is most easily regarded as simply an axiom that leads to the correct physical conclusions, rather than as an equation that can be derived from simpler principles…In principle, elaborations of it explain the structure of all atoms and molecules and so all of chemistry.”
The Schrodinger equation contains a parameter, h, called Planck’s constant, which is one of the many constants of Nature that is very “fine-tuned”: change it a little bit and you get a universe that cannot support any imaginable forms of life. Now I know enough mathematics and physics to be sure that most changes to this equation itself would result in a universe that could not have supported life; the properties of the elements in the periodic table certainly depend sensitively on the properties of this magnificent PDE. There may be some ways to modify it without disasterous results (I doubt it); but there is no doubt that the Schrodinger equation itself is very fine-tuned for life.
So I think to explain our existence without design, we not only have to imagine some cosmic random-number generator which churns out values for Planck’s constant and the other constants, but also a cosmic random-equation generator. Are we to assume that in all these other universes imagined by man to explain our existence, the behavior of particles is still governed by the Schrodinger equation, but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck’s constant have random values? Or perhaps the behavior of particles is governed by random types of PDEs in different universes, but there are still many universes in which Schrodinger’s equation holds, with random values for Planck’s constant? No doubt there were some universes which couldn’t produce life because the governing equation looked just like the Schrodinger equation, but with first derivatives in space where there should be second derivatives, or a second derivative in time where there should be a first derivative, or the complex number i was missing, or the mass was in the numerator, or the probability of finding a system in a given state was proportional to |u| rather than |u|^2??
37 Responses to Fine-tuning of the constants AND equations of Nature?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you – that will make continuing to discuss things here possible.
hazel: I am glad that you are off moderation. You earned the privilege. Let’s continue:
—–You write: “You are two different forms of the word “being.” If you use “being” as meaning existing, then I’m willing to grant what you say for the sake of discussion.
—–”But I have made it clear that I am arguing against the source of the universe being “a Being: a conscious, willful, intentional entity, capable of foresight, etc. That is a different meaning. Just because existing things can’t come from something that doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that the source of existence has to be a BEING.”
—-”You are conflating two uses of the word being and it is confusing the discussion. Perhaps we should use “existence” for the first meaning of being and “Being” for the second.”
True enough. Being can be personal or impersonal. I use it in the generic sense as an effect, and in a personal sense as a cause.
Obviously, things can participate in “being” in more than one way. While these many things “have” being, they come from that which “is” being. More to the point, this being, this uncaused cause, cannot be impersonal. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely CHOOSES to create a temporal effect. Only personal agents can choose.
Jasondulle makes a similar point @24 and uses admirable word economy in the process.
Mapou,
No, one is not forced into an infinite regress if they accept that being only comes from being. In fact, it’s because we know that an infinite regress is impossible that there must be a necessary being from which all other things receive their being contingently.
Regarding your claim that everything is made from nothing, this is logically and physically absurd. It is physically absurd because even if there is an equal amount of anti-matter and matter, so that the two cancel themselves out, neither is nothing. Both are something! Besides, the existence of equal opposites tells us nothing about where the two equal opposites came from. They would also need a cause.
It is logically absurd because something cannot be made of nothing. Nothing, by definition, instantiates no properties. Something, by definition, instantiates at least one property. So how can something be made up of nothing? That’s like saying my tire is filled with 60 pounds of nothing. With that sort of reasoning, I’ll buy your car from you for $30,000 of nothing. Deal?
Your math anology does not work because numbers are not real. Even if you are a Platonist and accept the reality of abstract objects like numbers, clearly negative numbers are not instantiated in physical reality. You cannot have a negative number of apples, for example. You can have no apples, one applie, or more apples, but you can’t have a negative number of apples. So it is false to reason that the sum of all negative numbers and positive numbers is zero, therefore physical reality is nothing. The ideal world has no causal relationship to the real world.
Besides, the sum of all negative and positive numbers being zero is the result, not the cause. You begin with something, and then adding them together end up with nothing. You on the other hand, are claiming that something came from nothing. That’s like saying out of zero, all the negative and positive numbers emerged.
Stephan, you write, “More to the point, this being, this uncaused cause, cannot be impersonal. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely CHOOSES to create a temporal effect. Only personal agents can choose.”
No, there are other options. As I ponder the various responses I’m getting here in these threads, I’m thinking that most of you, and pardon me here if I am judging incorrectly, have little experience with the metaphysics of the world’s other great religions, especially those in the East.
In the west, the ego and the conscious mind are central, and the god of Western monotheism is a god which reflects (and has done much to shape) this Western view. The eastern religions have a different view about such concepts as self, cause and effect, time, and so on, seeing our attachment to those concepts as illusions that keep us from realizing the true state of being that we are in.
I am not arguing that the Eastern religions are right and Western monotheism is wrong (although my own personal inclinations lean towards the Eastern views), but I am arguing that both are valid enough possible views that one who understands how much we can’t know realizes how much neither can be the right view, or literally true.
As I just wrote to Barb, and I repeat here in order to perhaps consolidate the discussion on one thread, my point is not that I am right and you are wrong, but rather that neither of us can know – positing a personal God as the ground and source of the universe is no more or less valid a speculation than positing an impersonal set of laws, or for that matter just accepting that the source and ground of the universe is just as likely to be something that is neither like beings nor laws as we know them.
Metaphysical beliefs are not explanations. They are speculations that we adopt for the metaphorical power they have in helping structure our understanding of things that really cannot be understood literally. Trying to prove that one’s metaphorical understandings are “true” is where the mistake is made.
So I could continue to argue the various points you all are making, such as Stephan’s statement that “The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely CHOOSES to create a temporal effect,” but I am seeing – and this has been instructive to me – that his sense that his way of seeing things is the only possible valid way is hindered greatly by the fact that he seems to have little inkling of what other perspectives even might look like.
—–hazel writes: “Stephen, you write, ‘More to the point, this being, this uncaused cause, cannot be impersonal. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely CHOOSES to create a temporal effect. Only personal agents can choose.’”
—–“No, there are other options. As I ponder the various responses I’m getting here in these threads, I’m thinking that most of you, and pardon me here if I am judging incorrectly, have little experience with the metaphysics of the world’s other great religions, especially those in the East.
If there is another logical option other than that of a self-existent being, no one has yet pointed it out. On other fronts, I do have a great deal of experience with pantheism, monism, and other types of eastern mysticism, which I will be happy to discuss with you. However, embarking on such a discussion at this time will not satisfactorily address the problem under discussion. If, at a later time, you would like for me to explain why pantheism or panetheism is problematic, I will be happy to do so. At the moment, however, I, and others on this thread are pointing out why atheism is an untenable position—not for the sake of giving you are hard time, but to console onlookers whose theistic faith has never been introduced to its rational foundations.
—–“In the west, the ego and the conscious mind are central, and the god of Western monotheism is a god which reflects (and has done much to shape) this Western view. The eastern religions have a different view about such concepts as self, cause and effect, time, and so on, seeing our attachment to those concepts as illusions that keep us from realizing the true state of being that we are in.”
This is true. They definitely see things differently.
—–“I am not arguing that the Eastern religions are right and Western monotheism is wrong (although my own personal inclinations lean towards the Eastern views), but I am arguing that both are valid enough possible views that one who understands how much we can’t know realizes how much neither can be the right view, or literally true.”
Yes, I understand that you are operating from a position of skepticism, which naturally prompts you to be suspicious of my arguments. However, skepticism is not always warranted. Clearly, you are not open to the idea of a transcendent creator, which would explain why you lean toward eastern religions. An immanent God that imposes no binding moral laws is much less threatening to an atheist than a transcendent God that judges his creatures
—–“”As I just wrote to Barb, and I repeat here in order to perhaps consolidate the discussion on one thread, my point is not that I am right and you are wrong, but rather that neither of us can know – positing a personal God as the ground and source of the universe is no more or less valid a speculation than positing an impersonal set of laws, or for that matter just accepting that the source and ground of the universe is just as likely to be something that is neither like beings nor laws as we know them.
It is not speculation. Reason makes it clear, as I have indicated elsewhere.
—–“Metaphysical beliefs are not explanations. They are speculations that we adopt for the metaphorical power they have in helping structure our understanding of things that really cannot be understood literally. Trying to prove that one’s metaphorical understandings are “true” is where the mistake is made.”
I have not offered metaphysical speculations. My arguments began with an assumption that something exists and I proceeded to show that, given that assumption, a personal creator is the only logical conclusion.
—–“So I could continue to argue the various points you all are making, such as Stephan’s statement that “The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely CHOOSES to create a temporal effect,” but I am seeing – and this has been instructive to me – that his sense that his way of seeing things is the only possible valid way is hindered greatly by the fact that he seems to have little inkling of what other perspectives even might look like.”
You have already suggested that I may not be aware of the other perspectives, and I have already indicated that such is not the case. In any event, you have not really addressed my arguments except to say in somewhat general terms that you don’t find them persuasive. But a subjective reaction is not the same as an objective refutation or even a serious challenge.
jasondulle,
I read your reply. I disagree with your position but I don’t think that adding anything to my previous comment regarding an ex-nihilo universe will improve the clarity of the point I set out to make. Thanks.
Mapou,
I do not think you were unclear. I simply think your ideas are mistaken, and I gave you reasons for thinking so–to which you have chosen not to reply. Unless my rebuttal was based on a misunderstanding of your point, I’ll take your failure to rebut or undercut my rebuttal, as a concession that your claims have been rebutted.