![\"Horsehead](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/01\/800px-NGC_2023_-_Horsehead_Nebula_edit.jpg\")
<\/a>(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
The following is basically a close paraphrase or a gloss (for my note-taking purposes) of \u201cA Beginner\u2019s Guide to the \u2018Fine-Tuning\u2019 Argument\u201d<\/a> by Max Baker-Hytch<\/a> of the University of Oxford. \u00a0As always with such notes, I make no claim of originality for what follows but share them because, while I\u2019m taking notes for my own eventual use elsewhere, I think others might find them of potential interest. \u00a0I do not claim entries on this blog as publications of mine:<\/span><\/p>\n Over the past few decades \u2014 I, at least, certainly didn\u2019t notice such claims when I was in high school \u2014 a number of physicists, philosophers, and others have begun to maintain that many aspects of the physical cosmos appear to be \u2018fine-tuned\u2019 for life, which is to say that various aspects of the basic structure of the universe and of the fundamental laws that govern it are balanced, as it were, on a knife\u2019s edge. If any of them had been different by even the tiniest amount, the universe would have been incapable of giving rise to or sustaining life. \u00a0In several cases, these \u201cfine-tuned\u201d features of the universe are such that, had they differed only very slightly from what they actually are, the universe would not have given rise to stars or even \u00a0galaxies, let alone to complex and conscious creatures like . . . well, us<\/em>.<\/p>\n Many specific examples of fine-tuning are available for consideration. \u00a0I\u2019ll mention two of them here, briefly:<\/p>\n It\u2019s been estimated by physicists that, if the strength of gravity were to differ by just one part in 1060<\/sup> \u2014 1060<\/sup> being a 1 followed by sixty (60) zeros, making one part in 1060<\/sup> an almost inconceivably small number \u2014 \u00a0there would be no stars and no galaxies. \u00a0If it were a tiny bit stronger than it is, all matter would have collapsed back in on itself; it if were a tiny bit weaker, matter would have dispersed too quickly for galaxies or stars to be able to form.<\/p>\n Another example is what\u2019s known as the \u201ccosmological constant.\u201d \u00a0What is it? \u00a0The cosmological constant is a number representing a factor that governs how fast space itself expands or contracts. Again, if it were a tiny bit too strong the universe would have collapsed back upon itself; if it were, by contrast, to be a tiny bit too weak, well, the universe would have expanded so quickly that galaxies and stars would be unable to form. It\u2019s estimated that the chance of the cosmological constant having a value that would permit life is roughly 1 in 1053<\/sup>. \u00a0(That\u2019s a one followed by fifty-three zeros. \u00a0So 1 over 1053<\/sup> is, again, a very, very small number.)<\/p>\n Still, while many scientists and philosophers concur that the universe manifests \u201cfine-tuning,\u201d that agreement doesn\u2019t extend to the meaning of the apparent fact. \u00a0Some, for example, argue that it is an indication that a supremely intelligent and powerful being is responsible for our universe. \u00a0(Overall, many scientists seem to me to be much more expressly friendly to theism than I recall from my youth.) \u00a0Others, by contrast, contend that it is, simply, a \u201cbrute fact.\u201d \u00a0It just is<\/em>, they argue, and no explanation for it is either necessary or possible.<\/p>\n One fairly witty way of denying that any explanation is needed for apparent \u201cfine-tuning\u201d runs roughly as follows:<\/p>\n If the universe hadn\u2019t been fine-tuned for life, we wouldn\u2019t be here to notice that fact. \u00a0There\u2019s no other kind of universe that we could<\/em> have observed other than a fine-tuned universe! \u00a0And, so, we shouldn\u2019t be surprised to find ourselves in such a universe. \u00a0If a puddle were somehow to exclaim in wonderment how the depression in the asphalt happens, as if by design, to fit his contours perfectly, we would laugh. \u00a0Wouldn\u2019t we?<\/p>\n The Canadian philosopher John Leslie has famously responded to this objection with a cute analogy that has become fairly popular: \u00a0Suppose that you were condemned to be executed by firing squad. \u00a0Fifty of the best marksmen in the land assemble, each of them armed with a rife and live ammunition. \u00a0On command, they take aim and fire. \u00a0To your amazement, though, after the crack of the rifles you\u2019re still standing. \u00a0You\u2019re still alive, uninjured.<\/p>\n Once the immediate exhilaration and relief had passed, wouldn\u2019t you be at least slightly curious about why<\/em> you were still living, still unhit? \u00a0 Would you have much patience if someone were to approach you, saying, \u201cActually, you shouldn\u2019t be surprised or curious. \u00a0After all, if the firing squad hadn\u2019t missed you wouldn\u2019t be standing here to wonder about it.\u201d \u00a0On the understanding that every member of the firing squad intended to kill you, and that every single one of them was individually capable of doing so, your survival seems to have been extremely improbable and something for which you might understandably want an explanation. \u00a0Leslie\u2019s analogy is meant to represent the universe, of course: \u00a0It appears to be true that the only kind of universe we could observe is a universe that is fine-tuned for our survival, but the existence of such a fine-tuned universe is very, very improbable on the hypothesis of sheer chance. \u00a0Simple curiosity seems to suggest that we should be looking for another hypothesis to explain our being here.<\/p>\n What other hypotheses are on offer?<\/p>\n Some theists (and their fellow-travelers) have argued that the fine-tuning of the universe isn\u2019t the result of mere chance but, instead, represents the deliberate choice or choices of an incredibly powerful rational mind, one to which the title God<\/em> could reasonably be applied.<\/p>\n But there is another hypothesis that has been proposed, perhaps primarily if not solely to ward off the possible theistic implications of cosmic \u201cfine-tuning\u201d \u00a0The hypothesis of a \u201cmultiverse\u201d postulates that the universe that we know isn\u2019t the only<\/em> universe that exists. \u00a0Instead, the hypothesis suggests, there is a vast ensemble<\/em> of universes with differing initial conditions and different fundamental physical laws. Given enough such universes, so the hypothesis runs, one of them at least is bound<\/em> to exhibit initial conditions and physical laws that enable the emergence of life.<\/p>\n So how well does the multiverse hypothesis actually work? \u00a0Does it better account for \u201cfine-tuning\u201d than theism does? \u00a0The debate continues to rage on this subject.<\/p>\n The theistic philosopher Robin Collins has devoted considerable attention to the question, and he suggests that the notion of a multiverse poses a serious dilemma: \u00a0Either the multiverse is \u201cunrestricted\u201d (that is, it is essentially infinite and contains every logically possible universe) or it is \u201crestricted\u201d (which is to say that it contains only some<\/em> of the logically possible universes).<\/p>\n If the latter, if the multiverse is restricted, then the question remains why the multiverse contains only this<\/em> set of universes rather than some other set. \u00a0But this choice simply kicks the \u201cfine-tuning\u201d can down the road a bit. \u00a0The puzzle still remains as to why<\/em> one of the finite number of universes available on the \u201crestricted\u201d view is apparently fine-tuned for life.<\/p>\n If, on the other hand, the multiverse is \u201cunrestricted,\u201d containing an infinite number of universes, this seems to pose potentially fatal problems for the very concept of scientific explanation itself. \u00a0Why? \u00a0Because, if the hypothesis of an unrestricted multiverse is true, then every logically possible event will actually happen somewhere in the boundless, infinitely capacious multiverse.<\/p>\n Suppose, Collins proposes, you roll a die a hundred times and, with every roll, it lands on six. If that were to happen in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, the casino proprietors and the observers standing around the table would all quite justifiably suspect that the die was rigged. \u00a0In the unrestricted multiverse, though, everything that is logically possible actually does\u00a0<\/em>occur, and that includes a die legitimately landing on six a hundred times in a row. \u00a0Or a thousand<\/em> times in a row. \u00a0Or a million<\/em> times. \u00a0Whenever something astounding happens, there won\u2019t be any reason to ask \u201cwhy.\u201d \u00a0So fifty sharpshooters missed you at very close range? \u00a0No big deal. \u00a0Everything that is logically possible \u2014 and there\u2019s nothing strictly illogical<\/em> about being missed by a fifty-member firing squad \u2014 actually happens<\/em> in our unrestricted multiverse. \u00a0So don\u2019t worry. \u00a0Be happy. \u00a0Move along; there\u2019s nothing to see here. \u00a0And that would probably put an end to scientific investigation. \u00a0No reasons are needed, so why should anybody seek<\/em> them? \u00a0Eat, drink, and be merry!<\/p>\n The fine-tuning argument does have at least one significant limitation from a theistic point of view, though: \u00a0It doesn\u2019t help us to choose between variant views of God. \u00a0It certainly doesn\u2019t establish the existence of the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic God, the God of the Bible or the God of the Qur\u2019an. \u00a0It is consistent with most versions of theism, in the sense that it seems to provide grounds for belief in a supremely powerful and enormously intelligent designer. \u00a0But no more. \u00a0Thus, while it doesn\u2019t establish any specific conception of deity, it can, potentially, serve as a component part of a broader cumulative argument for Christian theism.<\/p>\n Some of us \u2014 myself very much included \u2014 continue to bask in the glow of receiving the Kirtland Temple and other buildings and artifacts back into the custody of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/a>, and to contemplate their significance.<\/p>\n \u201cChurch Historian and Recorder Shares More About Kirtland Temple Acquisition:\u00a0Elder Kyle S. McKay says Kirtland Temple and other Nauvoo sites will open and artifacts will go on display in Church History Museum on March 25\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cChurch historians reflect on the spiritual significance of the historic Kirtland Temple, other sites, artifacts:\u00a0Historic sites \u2018remind us of events, they remind us of people, they tie us to the past. But above all, they help us to know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty,\u2019 said Elder Kyle S. McKay, who joins the Church News podcast with historian Matt Grow\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Here\u2019s an idea to consider: \u00a0\u201cUtah Rivers Council encourages water conservation with subsidized rain barrels:\u00a0The recycled-plastic barrels normally cost more than $150, but are available to residents of partnering municipalities for $55 and to all Utah residents for $83\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The Book of Mormon in Context Lesson 12: \u201cThis Is the Way\u201d: 2 Nephi 31-33<\/a><\/p>\n During the 25 February 2024 Come, Follow Me<\/em> segment of the Interpreter Radio Show, Steve Densley, John Thompson, and special guest Kerry Muhlestein discussed Book of Mormon lesson 12, \u201cThis Is the Way,\u201d on 2 Nephi 31-33.<\/p>\n A recording of their discussion has now been edited to remove commercial breaks and placed online for your listening pleasure at no charge. The other segments of the 25 February 2024 radio program can be accessed at https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/interpreter-radio-show-february-25-2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard on Sunday evenings each week from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a>
Space Telescope
(NASA, ESA, Joel Kastner public domain image; processing by Alyssa Pagan)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/a><\/a>
(Wikimedia Commons public domain photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n