Video: Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life

Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College, PA
On Guard, July 27-28, 2012

Other posts on this subject can found in the Cosmology section of my Articles and Links Arranged by Subject page. In particular, a list of fine-tuned parameters can be found at The Fine-Tuning of the Universe to one part in 10^10^123 is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator, aka. God.

Below are some of the slides from the lecture by Dr. Gonzalez. I have (with permission) included some of the commentary from the lecture with the slides and edited the text for clarity and readability. Any transcription errors or typographical errors are my own. Please see the video for the original content.

Contents

• What is fine tuning?
  
• Objections
  
• Calculating Fine-tuning
  
• Examples of Fine-tuning
  
  • Forces of Nature
    
  • Nucleosynthesis
    
  • Other Examples
    
• More about Fine-tuning
  
• Historical Science - Inferring Design
  
• The Anthropic Principle
  
• The Multiverse Cannot Explain the Fine-tuning
  
  • The Universe is Improbably Large
    
  • Boltzmann's Brain
    
  • Rejection of Rationality
    
• Design
  

---

1:18

What is fine-tuning?

• Over the past century, scientists have discovered that if certain properties of the universe were changed very slightly from what they are, life could not exist in the universe. These properties have to be within a very narrow range for our universe to be life-permitting (habitable). This sensitivity of the habitability of the universe to small changes in its properties is called fine-tuning.
  

• This was recognized about 60 years ago by Fred Hoyle, who was not a religious person. Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Max Tegmark, Bernard Carr, Frank Tipler, John Barrow, and Stephen Hawking also believe in fine-tuning.
  

---

2:37

A fine-tuned universe

"The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic physical constants and is, in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
- Martin Rees

"The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions."
- Paul Davies

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
- Stephen Hawking

---

3:35

Three types of fine tuning

1. Fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
   
   Existence and forms of physical laws (forces, types of particles, quantum principles, dimensionality of space-time).
   

   Examples:
   

   • F_G= Gm₁m₂/r²
     

     The force of gravity is proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation.
     

   • The Pauli Exclusion principle dictates how electrons are arranged in atoms and pretty much determines the whole structure of the periodic table and therefore all of chemistry.
     

   • The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
     

2. Fine-tuning of the constants of physics.
   
   Masses of fundamental particles, force strengths, cosmological constant value.
   

   Constants: In Gm₁m₂ (above), G is a constant. Other constants are:masses of fundamental particles, electron, proton, quarks, constants for electromagnetic force, strong force, weak force, cosmological constant.
   

3. Fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
   
   Initial entropy, initial expansion rate, initial density fluctuations, inflation, matter/antimatter ratio.
   

Contents

---

10:10

Possible objection 1

Q: How can you assign a probability when the sample size is precisely one (universe)? You can't say, for example, that 1 in 100 universes are habitable.

A: Run a hypothetical universe creating machine with different settings for the fine-tuning parameters and place a black dot on a chart of the results if it makes a non-habitable universe. Place a white dot when it is habitable. You will get a white dot is in a sea of black dots.

---

12:12

Possible objection 2

Q: What about universes governed by different laws of nature that allow radically different forms of life than those in our universe? Maybe constants and initial conditions in those universes aren't fine-tuned.

A: The answer to the question is not relevant to explaining the fine-tuning of our universe.

---

13:59

Possible objection 3

Q: If the constants and initial conditions had been different, we wouldn't exist, but maybe other forms of life would have been possible given the same laws.

A: Several of the examples of fine-tuning would prevent even the precursors to life. No planets, no galaxies, no chemistry! Slight changes in some parameters would result in a universe that is all black holes, all hydrogen, or it would collapse back on itself immediately.

Contents

---

How do you define fine-tuning?

A 10 cm ruler with an accuracy of 1 mm would have a relative error of 1%. In analogy to fine-tuning, 1% corresponds to the amount of fine-tuning (one part in 10²), and 10 cm is called the comparison range.

Similarly, for fine-tuning, you need to define a suitable comparison range. It could be theoretical or empirical. A physical property of the universe is usually considered fine-tuned if the life-permitting range is < 10% of the comparison range.

---

18:25

A sense of big numbers

• There are about 10¹³ cells in the human body.
  

• The number of seconds in the entire history of the universe = 10¹⁷
  

• Number of subatomic particles in the known universe = 10⁸⁰
  

• 
  Having a precision of one part in 10³⁰ is like firing a bullet and hitting an amoeba at the edge of the observable universe.
  

• Some examples of fine-tuning require greater precision than this!
  

---

20:05

One- and two-sided fine-tuning

• Some cases of fine-tuning are one-sided, meaning that a parameter falls near the edge of the life-permitting region.
  

• Some cases of fine-tuning are two-sided:
  

In one sided fine-tuning, there is either a minimum or a maximum value of the parameter beyond which the universe would be uninhabitable. In two sided fine-tuning there is both a minimum and a maximum value and if the parameter was outside this range, the universe would be uninhabitable.

---

Example: How a comparison range is calculated to determine the fine-tuning of the forces of nature:

21:24

G₀=Strength of gravity

Strength of weak force: 10³¹G₀

Strength of electromagnetism: 10³⁷G₀

Strength of strong nuclear force: 10⁴⁰G₀

The natural range of forces in the universe spans 40 orders of magnitude. Therefore 10⁴⁰ is an empirical comparison range. It is a lower limit because theoretically it could be greater.

---

23:12

Examples of fine-tuning

• Fr. Robert Spitzer notes that there are at least 20 independent constants and factors that are fine-tuned to a high degree of precision for life to be possible in the universe.
  

• The number continues to increase at a rate near one per year.
  

Contents

---

24:16

One-sided example 1

The maximum value of the electromagnetic force that allows a periodic table of sufficient length is 14 x 10³⁷G₀. Its degree of fine-tuning is:

(14-1)x10³⁷G₀/10⁴⁰G₀ ~ 1%.

---

26:04

One-sided example 2

The maximum value of the gravitational force that allows stars to last at least 10⁹ years = 3000G₀. Its degree of fine-tuning is 3000G₀/10⁴⁰ ~ 1/10³⁶.

But that is just one effect of gravity. When you consider other effects, the possible values are fewer. If gravity is stronger, a planet must be smaller so that complex life is not crushed, but then the planet will cool too fast if it is small. These multiple constraints put tighter limits on the strength of gravity.

---

27:37

Fine-tuning analogy

Radio dial stretched across the universe

WKLF ("K-Life"): You better tune your dial to the first Angstrom if you want to tune gravity for life!

---

28:35

One-sided example 3

If the weak force is decreased by a factor of 30, the initial neutron/proton ratio would be ~0.90, leading to nearly pure helium universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is ~ 1/10⁹.

The weak force is also involved in supernova explosions which distribute heavy elements throughout the galaxy. Heavy elements are needed for rocky planets and biological organisms. The weak force also determined the relative numbers of protons and neutrons in the early universe which determined the amount of helium in the universe. The weak force also controls radioactive decay which is responsible for most of the heat in the earth's interior. All three effects of weak the force, geophysical heat, amount of helium in early universe, and supernovae limit the values of the weak force that would permit the universe to be habitable.
Contents

---

31:20 Carbon production

• 
  Life-essential ¹²C is formed inside stars via the nuclear reaction:
  

  3α ---> ¹²C
  

  (The symbol α represents an alpha particle, a helium nucleus containing two protons and two neutrons.)
  

• In the early 1950s, physicists did not think this reaction could operate in stars. Fred Hoyle made a prediction. We're here, as carbon based intelligent life, so somehow ¹²C must get produced. What would enhance the rate was a then unknown excited state of ¹²C at 7.7 MeV above the ground state.
  

• The state was discovered by subsequent experiment.
  

---

32:32

Carbon production is fine-tuned

• The production of carbon via the 3α process is an example of fine-tuning.
  

• Oberhummer et al. (2000, Science) studied the relative production of C and O in stars. They showed that a 0.5% change in the strong nuclear force or a 4% change in the electromagnetic force would lead to large changes in the C/O ratio in the universe (due to changes in the energy of the ¹²C resonance level).
  

• But wait, there's more...
  

---

34:19

Carbon production is fine-tuned

• 
  A collision of two α particles
  produces
  ⁸Be
  which has a short lifetime of
  10^-16sec. This short lifetime prevents runaway fusion that would result in early stellar explosions (before life-essential heavy elements are formed). The instability of ⁸Be leads to stellar stability. But, its lifetime could not be much shorter, or the reaction to produce carbon could not proceed.
  

• There is another fine-tuning with ¹⁶O, which lacks a resonance level near the typical α particle energy in a star. If such a resonance level existed, most of the carbon would be converted to oxygen.
  

• Fourthly, a conservation law prevents most of the ¹⁶O from being converted to ²⁰Ne (via α-capture), which has a resonance at the right energy.
  

Because of the fine-tuning, there are comparable amounts of carbon and oxygen in the universe instead of mostly carbon or mostly oxygen. Both are needed to support life. Oxygen is needed for water and energy metabolism for complex intelligent life.
Contents

---

36:50

The cosmological constant (dark energy)

"Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics says that empty space should have about 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the amount we measure it to have. That is 1 with 120 zeroes after it! How to reduce the amount it has by such a huge magnitude, without making it precisely zero, is a complete mystery. Among physicists, this is considered the worst fine-tuning problem in physics."
- Lawrence Krauss, (Scientific American, Aug. 2004, pp. 83-84)

---

38:38

The initial entropy of the universe

• The initial state of the space-time (and thus gravity fields) of the early universe were very smooth and homogeneous (very low entropy).
  

• Present entropy of the universe is much greater than the initial entropy.
  

• Initially low entropy is required for a habitable universe in which high-entropy structures like stars form out of the surrounding low entropy space-time.
  

• Roger Penrose estimated that the amount of fine-tuning required of the initial entropy to allow for a habitable universe is 1 part in 10¹⁰¹²³!
  

Contents

---

43:10

Multidimensional fine-tuning

• To be precise, you cannot just change one parameter while holding all others constant. Changing another parameter might compensate for the life-inhibiting effects of a particular parameter change.
  

• Example: reducing the weak force can be compensated by reducing the mass difference between the proton and neutron in the early universe.
  

• However, it is usually the case that changing a parameter has multiple different effects. Reducing the weak force also affects the explosion of massive star supernovae and radioactive decay.
  

---

46:31

Local fine-tuning

• Each instance of global fine-tuning must be evaluated by its effects on habitability at the "local" level. By local, we mean structures within the universe that are relevant to life. These include galaxies, stars, and planets.
  

• Knowing the number and ranges of properties of galaxies, stars, and planets will allow us to determine if a change to a particular global parameter will have life-inhibiting effects.
  

• This involves details of star and planet formation, climate stability, orbital dynamics, stellar nucleosynthesis, etc.
  

Contents

---

51:33

Some history

"[Evidence for God comes] from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the Mind which ordered the universe."
- Plato (Laws 12.966e)

"...when the night had darkened the lands and they should behold the whole sky spangled and adorned with stars; and when they should see ... the rising and settings of all these celestial bodies, ... when they should behold all these things, most certainly they would have judged ... that all these marvelous works are the handiworks of the gods."
- Aristotle (On Philosophy)

---

52:59

Reconstructing historical events

The universe is an artifact. How do you reconstruct a historical event?

Not all science is laboratory based. Some science is historical. Geology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy are all historical sciences. There is a type of reasoning that is appropriate to historical sciences called abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. It's the way causal explanations are reached in the historical sciences. Abductive reasoning infers unseen causes in the past from facts in the present. If you discover an artifact or a pattern, and you want to determine a causal explanation for it, you apply the principle of uniformitarianism: apply the same kinds of causal explanations we use in everyday life to infer the best explanation for past unobserved events. If an artifact or pattern could be the result of several causes, you set up competing hypotheses based on mutually exhaustive possible explanations and choose the best one. The list of mutually exhaustive possible explanations is: necessity, chance, or design.

---

If you can rule out chance and necessity you can conclude the cause is design.

A meaningful pattern is improbable and rules out chance.

If you can infer a purpose it gives stronger evidence of design.

---

59:55

Chance

The conditions that allow for a life-permitting universe are highly improbable.

---

1:00:24

Necessity

The properties of the universe we observe are not logically necessary. They could have been otherwise.

M-theory explains how you could have other universes with different properties.

(There is a distinction between physical necessity and logical necessity.)

---

1:01:28

A meaningful pattern

The correlation of the conditions that allow for life and the fine-tuned parameter values of the universe we observe forms a meaningful pattern.

---

1:01:50

Summary of design argument

We can make a design argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to logical necessity, chance or design.
   

2. It is not due to logical necessity or chance.
   

3. Therefore, it is due to design.
   

Contents

---

1:02:47

What is the Anthropic Principle?

• The Anthropic Principle is the recognition that our very existence constrains the properties of the universe we observe to be those that allow our existence. We can only observe a habitable universe!
  

• It is merely a reminder that we have to take into account observer self-selection bias in interpreting our observations. Our sample of universes is necessarily biased.
  

• The Anthropic Principle does not explain why there exists a universe fine-tuned for life in the first place.
  

---

1:03:30

Why can't the Anthropic Principle explain us?

Illustration:

• Quasars were discovered to be very distant in 1963 from their large redshifts.
  

• Why are they so luminous?
  

• Wong answer: because if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to see them. If we see an object in the distant universe, then it must be very luminous.
  

• Right answer: Quasars are powered by the gravitational energy released by matter falling into a supermassive black hole.
  

The anthropic principle is stating a necessary condition to make the observation. It is not explaining the cause of the observed phenomenon.
Contents

---

1:05:04

What about the multiverse objection?

• If there exists a vast multiverse, the probabilistic resources available to account for our finely tuned universe by chance are increased. Then, we could appeal to the Anthropic Principle.
  

• Some cosmologists try to make the case that a multiverse actually exists.
  

• Chaotic eternal inflation - popular universe generator. Assume for the sake of argument.
  

Contents

---

1:10:12

Problem 1: Why such a large universe?

"... do we really need the whole observable universe, in order that sentient life can come about? This seems unlikely ... Let us be generous and ask that a region of radius one tenth of the ... observable universe must resemble the universe that we know, but we do not care about what happens outside that radius ... we can estimate how much more frequently the Creator comes across the smaller than the larger regions. The figure is no better than 10¹⁰¹²³. You see what an incredible extravagance it was (in terms of probability) for the Creator to bother to produce this extra distant part of the universe, that we don't actually need .. for our existence."
- Roger Penrose

If we live in a multiverse generated by a process like chaotic inflation, then for every observer who observes a universe of our size there are 10¹⁰¹²³ who observe a universe that is just 10 times smaller. That means if the universe really did arise from chaotic inflation, from just a quantum fluctuation of a vacuum, then the universe that we see beyond our region of space, say the nearest few hundred million light years, is not really there its an illusion, if you take this to the extreme ...

Contents

---

[Shortly after 1:05:04]

Boltzmann Brains

"One argument that the universe had a beginning is that it hasn't reached thermal equilibrium or "heat death" yet. If the universe was infinite in age, it would have reached thermal equilibrium an infinity of time ago - so that is evidence of a beginning of time. Ludwig Boltzmann in the 19th century said the whole vast universe could be at thermal equilibrium except we only observe this tiny little patch. This patch is not in thermal equilibrium just by chance ... we have reached heat death but not in this tiny little patch. The bigger the patch is, the more improbable it is so the universe is much vaster than it needs to be to account for our existence. If you just have a solar system pop out of a statistical fluctuation its much more probable than to have this big vast universe pop out of a statistical fluctuation. Then if we see this big vast universe and just our solar system popped out of a statistical fluctuation, then it must be an illusion, The stars that we see are really not there, everything beyond the solar system is an illusion, you have to believe in illusionism so it was rejected."

1:11:31

"The Boltzmann argument is relevant to the multiverse argument today."

"Taken to the extreme we can have a universe pop out of a quantum fluctuation that contains one brain. Boltzmann's brains are by far the most common observers in the multiverse given their small size. The smaller the universe the more probable it is. Its far more probable for a Boltzmann's brain to occur in a multiverse than our vast fine-tuned universe with its long history. And so you're more likely to be a free floating brain than a person with a real history living in a 13.7 billion year old universe. The world we observe then is an illusion. You're the only person who actually exists. All your memories are false. The probability of forming our universe out of a quantum fluctuation at its present state with the appearance of age is more likely than forming it with its finely tuned initial conditions and its long history and so this is called the attack of the Boltzmann brains and its a real conundrum for the multiverse advocates. They basically have to give up realism and the whole world around them is an illusion if they want to believe in multiverse because the most common observer in the multiverse is a Boltzmann's brain."

[Q&A 1:27:00]

If the multiverse theory is true then the most probable reality is that there is no fine-tuning, the universe arose as a quantum fluctuation consisting only of your brain, and everything else is an illusion. To believe in the multiverse is to believe in illusionism.

Contents

---

1:12:50

Problem 2: The rejection of rationality

• Anything that can happen, no matter how improbable, does happen countless many times in the multiverse.
  

• Anything can be attributed just as readily to human design or to chance fluctuations of the quantum vacuum of the inflaton field.
  

• Renders all scientific reasoning and explanations unreliable. Must believe in random miracles!
  

Multiverse cosmology can explain the origin of all events no matter how improbable, as long as they're not impossible, by reference to chance because of the infinite probabilistic resources it provides. Events we explain in terms of known causes based on ordinary experience are just as readily explained in multiverse cosmology as chance occurrences without any causal antecedent.

There is no way to attribute events to causal physical laws. All causes as seen to be related to effects really aren't. They're just chance fluctuations. Chance events. So you do away with the possibility of all scientific reasoning because scientific explanation and reasoning are unreliable. You must believe in random miracles. The scientific method is dead if you believe in the multiverse.

Contents

---

1:14:24

The best explanation

• Design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.
  

• From our uniform and repeated experience, objects we know are designed are always associated with minds and never otherwise.
  

• Multiverse cosmologies invoke causes we have no experience with and Anthropic explanations fail on our universe. But, we do have direct experience with minds.
  

• The cause of the universe is a transcendent, immaterial, timeless Mind.
  

"You can think of the universe as a kind of artifact and that artifact points to a designer. If you add to this the evidence for a beginning to the universe from another session, the cosmological argument, then you have a cause of the design already available to you. So if you already accept the cosmological argument there's a cause waiting in the wings to employ in explaining the design of our universe ... the fine tuning. The cause of the universe must be a designer who is transcendent, immaterial and a mind that exists in a timeless eternity and I think that is quite consonant with the Christian idea of God."

---

Copyright © 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Naturalism is an extraordinary claim.

Most people don't understand that naturalism is an extraordinary claim. The following should help to explain why it is:

The laws of nature seem to be relatively simple mathematical relationships. There are only four fundamental forces known by science. How is it that just by chance simple natural laws and a big bang would include or produce all the factors necessary for the universe to support life: 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning parameters, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life? How is it possible that simple undesigned natural laws working alone could produce the complex machinery of cells and the information needed for simple life and macroevolution? How could such finely-tuned complexity arise at every scale from the atomic to the cosmic from simple undesigned unguided natural laws controlling chance interactions within the universe? The immensity of the problem is a compelling argument for design. If you wanted to design such a complicated thing from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? (The multiverse, for which there is no evidence, doesn't explain it.)

According to naturalism, undesigned natural laws caused stars and galaxies to form after the Big Bang. Inside stars, undesigned natural laws allowed the nuclei of hydrogen atoms and helium atoms to be fused into stable heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, iron, and all the rest. Then undesigned natural laws caused these stars to form supernovae and explode distributing chemical elements throughout the galaxy. These undesigned natural laws ensured that there are not too many supernovae which would be dangerous to life or too few which would not provide enough elements to form planets or life. But the right amount of elements are distributed and planets form that can support life. The chemical elements, due to undesigned natural laws have just the right properties to form bonds that can be broken and reformed according to the chemical needs of biological life.

The cosmological fine-tuning parameters include: the expansion rate of the universe, the gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, the initial entropy of the universe, the mass density of the universe, the strong nuclear force and many others. All these parameters have to have exactly the right values or life could not exist in the universe.

The factors needed for a planet to be habitable include: a location in the habitable zone around its star, its star's location in the galactic habitable zone, a main sequence G2 dwarf star, gas giant planets to protect inner habitable planets from comet impacts, a nearly circular orbit, an oxygen rich atmosphere, the right amount of water, a correct mass, a large moon, plate tectonics, a hot liquid iron interior, a moderate rate of rotation, and other factors.

The point here is not that the earth or the biological life on it is unique, there might be many planets in the universe like earth. The point is how lucky it is that all these factors needed for life, according to naturalism, arise from undesigned unguided natural laws. Given the complexity of the factors needed to support life and the improbability of life originating and evolving naturally, the more life we find in the universe the stronger the argument for design is. And there is plenty of evidence for life elsewhere in the universe. (Some skeptics may ask, if the universe was designed for life, why doesn't life form spontaneously? Consider a computer, a computer is designed but programs don't arise spontaneously, they have to be designed. Similarly, in a universe designed for life, life also has to be designed.)

The chemical factors needed for complex life include: Carbon's unique ability to form many different biological compounds. Water's properties as a solvent, its viscosity is just right, it has a high heat capacity which keeps temperatures on the planet and in organisms stable, it is extremely effective for evaporative cooling, it expands when it freezes so it floats providing insulation which keeps large bodies of water, oceans and lakes, from freezing solid which would make life impossible. Oxygen is used in energy metabolism in living organisms, it's produced by photosynthesis in plants, O2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The complex machinery in cells includes: DNA, RNA, enzymes to replicate DNA, enzymes to create mRNA from a DNA template, ribosomes to produce proteins from mRNA, a tRNA for each codon in the genetic code and as many enzymes to connect each tRNA with its amino acid, nuclear membranes, cell membranes, proteins in the membranes that control what goes in and out through the membrane, enzymes used in cellular metabolism, proteins that help other proteins fold, microtubules, etc, etc

The law of conservation of information and the no free lunch theorem indicate that biological information, the information in DNA, could not arise spontaneously from chance, mutation, and natural selection. The only known source of information is an intelligent mind.

Yet, according to naturalism, all the conditions needed for life and life itself are supposed to self-organize through the action of undesigned natural laws working by themselves? To paraphrase Fred Hoyle it seems more likely that a superintellect has monkeyed with the laws of chemistry and physics.

---

Copyright © 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

The Privileged Planet: The rare confluence of conditions that allow Earth to support complex life also make the Earth the best location from which to make scientific discoveries. Those scientific discoveries reveal that the universe is understandable to humankind. All this indicates a purpose to the universe: to support intelligent life and to allow intelligent life to discover that the universe was created.

The Privileged Planet is a video about the conditions required for a planet to support intelligent life. It is based on a book by the same name by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. The video starts out discussing the scientific discoveries that led to the belief that the earth is ordinary - the earth orbits the sun, the sun is just one of many stars in our galaxy, and our galaxy is just one of the many galaxies in the universe. But the video goes on to point out there are about twenty conditions needed for a planet to be able to support life. These conditions are not individually likely to occur by chance, and they are exceedingly unlikely to occur together. It is also an odd coincidence that planets like earth that can support complex life, ie. that can support intelligent observers, are also the best platforms for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries. Furthermore, it surprising that our complicated universe seems to be fine-tuned to support life and natural laws are discoverable to humans All of this taken together, the conditions for a planet to be able to support intelligent life are very unlikely, those same conditions that make life possible also provide the best conditions for making scientific discoveries, the universe is finely tuned to support life, and natural laws are intelligible to humankind, suggest that there is a purpose to the universe. That purpose is to support intelligent life and provide a place where intelligent life can understand the universe and ultimately understand that the universe was created.

The video is in 12 short parts included in the youtube
playlist.

Conditions necessary for a planet to support life.

The factors necessary for a planet to support complex life include:

• Liquid water.
  

• The planet must be within the circumstellar habitable zone around its star - the distance from the star that liquid water and an oxygen rich atmosphere can exist.
  

• The planet must be in the galactic habitable zone. Being too close to the center of the galaxy would expose the planet to too much radiation. Too far from the center there are not enough heavy elements to support life.
  

• Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star, which is not too hot and not too cool. A smaller star would have a habitable zone too close to itself and the gravity of the star would keep the same side of any planet within the zone constantly facing the star. The side facing the star would be too hot and receive too much radiation to support life, the side facing away from the star would be too cold.
  

• Protected by gas giant planets that shield the inner planets from comet impacts.
  

• Nearly circular orbit.
  

• Oxygen-rich atmosphere.
  

• Correct mass.
  

• Orbited by large moon - "if the moon didn't exist, neither would we". The moon is 1/4 the size of the earth. The moon's gravity stabilizes the angle of the earth's axis insuring temperate seasonal changes. It also helps to circulate the warm and cold waters of the ocean stabilizing the climate and distributing elements, chemicals, and nutrients needed for life.
  

• Magnetic field - generated by the movement of liquid iron deep in the planet's interior, protects the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind.
  

• Plate tectonics - regulates interior temperature of the planet, recycles carbon, mixes elements necessary for life, shapes the continents ensuring land as well as ocean environments.
  

• Enough heat in the interior to circulate liquid iron.
  

• Ratio of liquid water and continents to allow the diversity of life and an active biosphere needed to support complex life.
  

• Moderate rate of rotation
  

• Oxygen / Nitrogen atmosphere. Assures temperate climate, provides protection from sun's radiation, is the correct combination of gases for liquid water and complex life.
  

The video states the the probability of a planet having all the conditions needed to support life is 10^-15. There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Most sources say there are between 100 and 500 billion galaxies in the universe. By chance, there should be less than one habitable planet per galaxy but a few million habitable planets throughout the universe.

The conditions necessary for a planet to support life make a planet the best location for making scientific discoveries.

• The Moon The best place in our solar system to observe a solar eclipse is the earth which is also the one place that has observers. During an eclipse, the moon appears to be about the same size as the sun. In order for this to happen, the earth has to be the right distance from the sun and it has to have a large moon. These are both factors that also allow the earth to support life.
  

  An eclipse also provides an opportunity to make scientific discoveries. When the moon blocks the sun during an eclipse, stars near the sun become visible. Also the sun's atmosphere, the chromosphere, which extends beyond the surface of the sun, becomes visible too. Observations of the positions of stars near the sun allowed scientists to confirm that the gravity of the sun bends light that passes near it confirming Einstein's theory of relativity. Observations made of the sun's chromosphere allowed scientists to discover helium in it. Other observations allowed scientists to discover how the spectrum of sunlight is produced. This led to the understanding of how the spectra of distant stars are produced which is crucial to our understanding of astrophysics.
  

• The Atmosphere The Earth's atmosphere has the right mixes of gasses to support life and is transparent which allows us to observe the universe around our planet: the other planets, the sun, stars in our galaxy and other galaxies. There are 70 planets and moons in our solar system. Only seven have a substantial atmosphere, and only the earth has an atmosphere that is transparent and can support life. The sun, super novae, and other sources in the universe emit electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infra-red light, microwaves and radio waves. Visible light is less than one trillionth of a trillionth of the natural range of the electromagnetic spectrum but visible light is useful for life processes. For example, photosynthesis could not make use of gamma rays or microwaves. Visible light is also the most informative about the structures in the universe. Visible light is produced in abundance by the sun and it most easily penetrates the atmosphere of earth. The atmosphere that is needed to support life allows us to observe the distant universe.
  

The universe is finely-tuned to support life.

The forces and mathematical constants of the laws of physics that apply in our universe are finely tuned to support life. Gravity causes planets, stars and galaxies to form. If the force of gravity was even slightly stronger, intelligent life could not exist. The strong nuclear force is necessary to holds protons and neutrons together to make the atoms which make up our environment and our bodies. If there were no electromagnetic force, there would be no light and no bonding between the atoms which is needed to construct our environment and our bodies. If the masses of subatomic particles were different, life as we know it could not exist. A slight change in any of the forces of nature or physical constants or if they were chosen at random, would make the universe unable to support life. The forces and constants are another example of the correlation between life and discovery. They are finely tuned to support life, and they can also be discovered and understood by humankind.

The universe is intelligible.

The human mind can understand the universe. Natural laws are discoverable because they obey simple mathematical relationships. Many of the most important theories in physics can be written on a single sheet of paper. This intelligibility cannot be explained by naturalistic assumptions. The discoverablity of natural laws is not needed for survival. According to materialist belief, human reason supposedly developed to hunt and survive in the wild. Our ability to discover and understand atoms or black holes, is unnecessary for Darwinian survival.

There is a plan for the universe.

The founders of modern science Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler, all believed the universe was the product of a mind and that it was intelligible to us because it was the product of an intelligent being. In those times, science was part of religion, it was the study of the mind of God.

Modern science shows us that the universe seems to have been intended to contain observers who can understand it. The conditions that make a planet habitable also provide the best conditions to make scientific discoveries. The earth's atmosphere, its location in the solar system, its moon, the arrangement of other planets in its solar system, its star, and its location in galaxy are the most important conditions needed to support life, and also are ideal for making a wide range of scientific discoveries. The laws of nature are intelligible by humankind and from studying them we understand that the universe is finely tuned to support life. All of this cannot be explained by coincidence. It is too improbable to be the result of chance. It cannot be explained by impersonal forces of nature. It indicates a plan. Something beyond the universe must account for it. The universe seems to have been designed by a transcendent creator in order to support intelligent life, and allow intelligent life to discover that.

Many modern scientists believe the evidence that the universe was designed. These scientists include Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow, and other scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, Louis Pasteur.

Resources

There are links to resources for further study at theprivilegedplanet.com.

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe. Intelligent Design is a Better Explanation.

In the video The Beginning of the Universe and Fine-Tuning , Robert J. Spitzer, PhD. discusses the Big Bang theory and Bruce Gordon, PhD. discusses how the universe is finely tuned to support life and why multiverse theories do not provide a natural explanation for the fine-tuning.

There s also a fact sheet summarizing the information in the video at magiscenter.com.

This post will focus on Bruce Gordon's part of the video. In the video, Bruce Gordon explains that if the initial conditions, the natural laws, and the physical constants of the universe were just the tiniest bit different, the universe would not be able to support life. The fact that the universe is so finely tuned to support life is highly improbable. Gordon discusses a few examples of this fine-tuning such as the initial entropy of the universe, the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. Then Gordon goes on to discuss multiverse theories and why they do not solve the problem of fine-tuning. He explains how inflation can produce a huge number of universes and how string theory can explain how each universe might have different natural laws. If there are enough different universes, then the chance that one like ours can exist becomes more probable. However Gordon explains why inflation does not solve the problem of fine-tuning, and he gives reasons why string theory is not credible, such as the absence of supersymmetric particles at low energy scales. Gordon then lists some of the absurd consequences of multiverse theories and using quotes from materialists shows that they believe in a multiverse instead of intelligent design not because of the science but because they don't want to believe in intelligent design.

Before going into the details of Bruce Gordon's talk, I would like to make the point that multiverse theories were not proposed in order to explain direct evidence of other universes. They were contrived to provide an alternative explanation for evidence that indicated the universe was designed and created at the time of the Big Bang (ie.was fine-tuned and had a transcendent creator). The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed to escape the conclusions that consciousness can collapse a wave function in a double slit experiment, sustain a wave function in the quantum Zeno effect, and cause the properties of matter to become fixed in a quantum entanglement experiment. These facts show that consciousness is fundamental and matter depends on consciousness therefore consciousness cannot be produced by the matter in the brain. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain the evidence that falsified Darwinism: the long stasis of species and sudden appearance of new species (and phyla) faster than any natural explanation of genetic change can explain. When one considers these facts, one can see that it is not the intelligent design proponents who are interpreting data according to their metaphysical beliefs, it is the materialist naturalists who are contriving theories in order to avoid the obvious conclusions from empirical data.

The Finely-Tuned Universe

In the video, Bruce Gordon explained the fine-tuning of the universe by analogy to the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears where the porridge is not too hot and not too cold but just right. The initial conditions, natural laws, and physical constants of our universe are just right to support life. If they were even the tiniest bit different, the universe could not support life. This is highly improbable and as Gordon explains in his talk, cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon.

Initial Conditions: The Initial Entropy of the Universe

Gordon says that the Big Bang "explosion" was not "messy" it was an orderly expansion with finely tuned initial conditions represented by very low entropy. He explains how Roger Penrose calculated that the initial entropy of the universe to be 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³. Penrose used the observed entropy of our universe, the entropy per baryon (a baryon is a proton or a neutron) and the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a black hole to calculate the entropy of the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang. The observed entropy divided by the largest possible entropy is equal to the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and is 1 / 10¹⁰¹²³. To explain how small that value is, Gordon said that to write out that number you would need to write one zero for each of the 10⁸⁰ baryons in our universe and also write a zero for every baryon in 100 million trillion trillion trillion more universes with the same number of baryons.

The Gravitational Constant

Gordon continued on to explain how the gravitational constant is finely tuned to support life. He said that the strongest force in the universe is the strong nuclear force which is 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity which is the weakest force in the universe. Gordon explained that this value of 10⁴⁰ represented the range for which it is reasonable for a force of nature fall within, and so 1 in 10⁴⁰ represents the fine tuning of the gravitational constant. He explained how finely tuned that value is by suggesting that if a tape measure the length of the universe, 30 billion light years long, or 10²⁸ inches long was used as a scale, then if the gravitational constant was decreased by one inch, the gravitational constant would decrease a trillion fold and no structures would form in the universe. If the gravitational constant were increased by one inch, the gravitational constant would be one trillion times larger and as he said, "even weight watcher's wouldn't help you", meaning that gravity would be too strong for human life to exist.

The Cosmological Constant

Gordon also mentioned that the cosmological constant, the rate of expansion of space, is fine tuned to 1 part in 10¹²⁰. If it was larger, space would expand too fast to form structures, if it was smaller, the universe would re-collapse into itself too quickly to support life.

Multiverse Theories

Inflation

Gordon next began to discuss multiverse theories and started by discussing inflation. Inflation occurred a split-second after the Big Bang, when the universe underwent a period of super-fast expansion. This expansion was postulated to explain the uniform distribution of energy and matter, including the cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that the universe is geometrically flat. After the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand at the rate we see today.

Gordon also explained that the mathematics describing inflation could provide a natural explanation for the improbably high level of fine tuning in our universe. Inflation allows for the creation of an infinite number of "bubbles", regions of space, other universes, distinct from our own. If there are an infinite number of other universes, then it becomes probable that there will be some like our universe no matter how improbable its fine-tuning. Gordon explains that the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem (explained earlier in the video by Robert Spitzer and also in the fact sheet linked above) applies to inflation so this process of creating new universes could not extend infinitely into the past and there must have been an initial inflation bubble because the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero. Therefore, even a multiverse produced by inflationary processes must have a beginning and a transcendent cause (a cause outside itself).

However, inflation does not solve the problem of the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe, it makes it worse. Gordon says, "When inflation turns off and normal expansion begins, the shut-off energy is fine-tuned to at least one part in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion." In addition, the initial fine-tuning of the Big Bang before inflation must be greater than it is after inflation. While inflation was proposed to explain the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation which was fine-tuned to one part in 100,000 and the flatness of the universe which was fine tuned to one part in 10¹⁵, there is a huge amount of energy needed to turn off inflation in just the right way and this energy is fine-tuned to between 1 in 10⁵³ and 1 in 10¹²³. After inflation, the initial conditions are fine tuned to 1 part in 10¹⁰¹²³ so before inflation, the fine tuning had to be greater than that value.

String Theory

Gordon continued on to explain how string theory has been proposed to explain why natural laws and constants are the way they are. He says, "String theory postulates that the fundamental constituents of nature are one-dimensional filaments instead of particles. These filaments are either open or closed into loops that vibrate in different ways to produce different particles." The size of strings are on the order of the Planck scale which is 10³³cm. Strings move in a space time of nine spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Gordon says, "The extra six space dimensions must be curled up or 'compactified.' There are infinitely many ways of doing this. Each compactification of space can be thought of as representing a different universe with different laws and constants." The size of the compactification represents the strength of physical constants.

When inflationary cosmology is merged with string theory, one can propose that each universe allowed under inflation is different due to a different compactification in that universe.

Problems with String Theory

However, Gordon explains that, "The "mechanism" by which the string landscape produces universes is highly speculative and lacks justification. In order to work, the landscape has to start in its highest energy state and cascade downward - but there's no reason to believe this is what would happen." And, "If the landscape exists, there's good reason to think we should see "supersymmetric" particles at low energy scales. We do not." Although there are 10⁵⁰⁰ possible different string universes we don't know if any of them they exist except ours. No one knows if there are enough universes with the right properties to make the existence of our universe probable. Also, as mentioned above, inflation does not solve the problem of fine tuning it only moves it back one step.

Problems with the Multiverse Theory

Gordon also pointed out that materialists are willing to accept several very unlikely conjectures in order to avoid accepting that the universe was designed and created. Those conjecture are:

• There is an inflaton field.
  
• A potentially infinite number of universes exist.
  
• Strings exist.
  
• There are six additional compactified spacial dimensions.
  
• "An infinite number of compactifications of the six additional spatial dimensions exist and each corresponds (via inflation) to a potential infinity of actual universes." Absurdly, the consequence of this is a space infinitely larger than our own universe.
  

Other absurd consequences of a multiverse theory include:

• An infinite number of universes.
  
• A subset of universes that are infinite in number and identical to ours.
  
• An infinite subset of universes that are almost like ours but slightly different.
  

Gordon also mentioned the Boltzmann Brain paradox, explained here in a New York Times article: "... you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos." Gordon explains that the multiverse is "falsified because the type of people we take ourselves to be are not the typical observers within it." Gordon says that cosmologists try to get around this but he implies it is not credible because it involves "gerrymandering" of the mathematics.

Gordon also explains how multiverse theories are self-defeating, "By providing an all-too-easy explanation for anything that has happened or may happen, the multiverse ends up explaining nothing at all."

Materialist's Bias

Gordon next asks why materialists persist in believing in multiverses? To answer that question Gordon give a series of quotes:

Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics, Stanford university:

... If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation ... then as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

Bernard Carr, University of London

To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed, anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it sees to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design.

Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist, Harvard University.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Materialists admit they believe in absurd things because they do not want to believe an intelligence designed and created the universe. It is ironic because believing in a multiverse requires believing in many much more absurd things than believing in a transcendent creator does. Gordon Closes with a slide that explains the absurdity of materialism:

In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.

In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle.

In a theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and thus are expressions of rational purpose.

Scientific materialism is epistemically self-defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

UPDATE: My post Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life has more information on why the mulitverse theory cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe to support life. Points covered include:

• Under the multiverse theory, it is 10¹⁰¹²³ more likely that our universe is much smaller than we think and its vast size is only an illusion. You have to believe in illusionism if you believe in the multiverse.
  

• The Boltzmann's Brain paradox is covered in more detail.
  

• How the multiverse theory undermines scientific rationality is also discussed.
  

---

Copyright © 2014, 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe to one part in 1010123 is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator, aka. God.

Many Nobel Prize winning scientists believed there is scientific evidence which is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator of the universe. These Nobelists include Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian D. Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, George Wald, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, and Arthur Schawlow. Other great scientists who believed the same thing include Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, and Wernher von Braun. (Eminent Researchers.)

This scientific evidence of design and creation includes the evidence that if certain natural laws were only the tiniest bit different, life could not exist in the universe. This indicates the universe was fine-tuned to support life. To understand why this argument is so convincing, consider that the ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons in the universe is fine-tuned to one part in 10³⁷. To visualize how improbable that value is, consider this explanation from godandscience.org

One part in 10³⁷ is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10³⁷.

The ratio of electrons to protons is not the only parameter of the universe that is fine tuned. There are many others. To calculate the probabilities of these all together you would multiply them and the result would be fantastically, incomprehensibly, improbable:

(The information below comes from godandscience.org unless otherwise noted. More information on fine-tuning of the universe and an explanation of how fine-tuning is calculated can be found at Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life.)

Expansion rate of the universe: fine-tuned to 1 part in 10⁶⁰ (1:10⁶⁰) (See refrence 1)
If larger: the heat and energy of the universe would dissipate too quickly stable galaxies would not form
If smaller: the matter in the universe would have collapsed back on itself

Gravitational force constant: 1:10⁴⁰ (ref. 1)
If larger: stars would be too hot, they would burn up too quickly, and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain too cool so that nuclear fusion would never ignite and hence we would have no element production

Initial Entropy of the Universe: 1:10¹⁰¹²³ (one in ten to the tenth to the 123rd) (ref. 3)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

Initial entropy before inflation: Greater than 1:10¹⁰¹²³ (ref. 5)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

Mass Density of Universe: 1:10⁵⁹
If larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Strong nuclear force: 1:50 (ref. 4)
If larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable
If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form

Cosmological constant: 1:10¹²⁰
If larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Ratio of number of electrons to number of protons: 1:10³⁷
If larger or smaller, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

Ratio of Electromagnetic force constant : Gravitational force constant: 1:10⁴⁰
If larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support life
If smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

Flatness: 1:10¹⁵ (ref. 5)

Inflation shut-off energy: Between 1:10⁵³ and 1:10¹²³ (ref. 5)

Cosmic microwave background radiation: 1:100,000 (ref. 5)

Godandscience,org lists 34 fine-tuning parameters:

1. Strong nuclear force constant
   
2. Weak nuclear force constant
   
3. Gravitational force constant
   
4. Electromagnetic force constant
   
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
   
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   
8. Expansion rate of the universe
   
9. Entropy level of the universe
   
10. Mass density of the universe
    
11. Velocity of light
    
12. Age of the universe
    
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
    
14. Average distance between galaxies
    
15. Density of galaxy cluster
    
16. Average distance between stars
    
17. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)
    
18. Decay rate of protons
    
19. ¹²C to ¹⁶O nuclear energy level ratio
    
20. Ground state energy level for ⁴He
    
21. Decay rate of ⁸Be
    
22. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    
23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    
24. Polarity of the water molecule
    
25. Supernovae eruptions
    
26. White dwarf binaries
    
27. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    
29. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
    
30. Mass of the neutrino
    
31. Big bang ripples
    
32. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    
33. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    
34. Cosmological constant
    

Many people have wondered how the universe could be so mathematically precise: how natural laws could follow mathematical rules, and how the universe could be so fantastically, improbably, fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. There is a simple answer for that.

First, consider the analogy that the universe might be a simulation running on a computer. That would explain how it could operate with such mathematical precision. All the laws and fine-tuned parameters could be specified in the program. But that is just an analogy. I am not suggesting the universe is a computer simulation. However, it may be that the universe was created in the mind of God. In which case God is analogous to the computer and the universe is analogous to a program running on the computer.

Mathematics consists entirely of ideas. God is pure mind. God creates through thought. All that can exist is mind. Your consciousness is not part of the "simulation". Your brain and body are part of it, but you, your consciousness, is not physical. You would still exist if the "simulation" ended. But the physical universe of space and time may exist only in the mind of God. This may be what mystics mean when they say everything is part of God.

If this is right, then God can create miracles with a thought. He can cause improbable events such as the origin and evolution of life with a thought.

It also makes sense of quantum mechanics. If the physical universe exists as thought in the mind of God, then there is no ultimate reality to explain quantum mechanics or to explain what a wave function is. There are only mathematical formulas that describe how our reality will behave. It is exactly what you would expect if you found natural laws that obeyed mathematical rules that made no physical sense. It might be because there isn't anything physical behind them. There is only a mathematical engine (consciousness, the mind of God) behind them. It could explain wave/particle duality, quantum entanglement, and the quantum Zeno effect. It is also consistent with the theistic and mystical belief that the continued action of God is necessary to keep the physical universe extant.

References

1. jashow.org: The Four Great Discoveries of Modern Science That Prove God Exists/Program 3

2. godandscience.org: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe by Rich Deem

3. evolutionnews.org: Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe" by Casey Luskin

4. Wikipedia: Fine-tuned Universe

5. Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe. Intelligent Design is a Better Explanation.

---

Copyright © 2014, 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Video: Doug Ell Discusses the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Here is an excellent video of Doug Ell giving a talk at MIT about his book Counting To God. The book is about the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

As I watched this video, I realized that mainstream science (astronomy, biology, and physics) has provided much of the evidence for intelligent design, but most scientists don't interpret it as such because of their materialist bias. It says something important about science that even though many of the scientists carrying it out are confused and in denial about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the evolution of species, science still produces the truth.

Before the scientific revolution, many people thought, correctly, that it was self-evident that the universe and all life was created, and therefore there must be a creator. The first scientists all believed that by studying science they would learn about God - about how God designed the world. They didn't see any conflict between science and belief in God.

Later, atheist scientists, claiming they were devoted to truth and as scientists uniquely qualified to find it, came along and confused so many people about what had once been self-evident. As John Lennox points out, modern atheists have created a false dichotomy between science and God by claiming God is a god of the gaps who's role is limited to what science can't explain and diminished by every new scientific discovery. But this is a deception. Theists believe that God created the universe including all the natural laws that scientists are so pleased to have discovered. Now after many years of collecting scientific data, that data interpreted by scientists studying intelligent design is demonstrating those pre-scientific people and the early scientists were right all along and the atheist scientists were wrong. It would be comical if it wasn't such a tragedy.

Scientists believe they are seeking the truth, and it would seem that the scientific truth leads to God. As Lennox points out, in John 14:6 it is written, "I am the truth..." There are some modern scientists who understood this. Werner Heisenberg winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics is one of them. He said:

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

At the beginning of the talk, Ell says that the reason he is able to write on this subject is because he is not at a university... so, when one tries to understand the problems of science, one has to consider the university system as part of the problem.

The talk is only 40 minutes and it covers a lot of ground. If you are interested in more information a good place to start is the Intelligent Design section on the Articles Arranged by Subject page.

A series of video interviews of Stephen Meyer (and transcripts) on this subject, which covers some of the same evidence, can be found at The Cosmological Argument for a Transcendent Designer of the Universe.

Doug Ell's talk is an excellent overview of the wide variety of empirical evidence that supports intelligent design. Below is a list of links to articles on subjects related to the video organized in order the subjects were discussed in the talk:

Physics

• Articles Arranged by Subject: Intelligent Design
  
• The Cosmological Argument for a Transcendent Designer of the Universe
  
• Atheists: "Science shows there is no good reason to believe in God". Nobel Prize Winning Scientists: "The scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of God"
  

Biology

Origin and Technology of Life

• Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated) by Casey Luskin
  
• Materialism Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
  
• The fine-tuning of the genetic code could not have arisen through the unguided action of natural laws.
  

Macroevolution

• Primer: Summary of Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
  
• Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
  
• DNA analysis fails to confirm the evolutionary tree
  
• The Evidence said to support neo-Darwinism, doesn't
  
• Articles Arranged by Subject: Human Origins
  

Human Origins

• Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence
  
• Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry?
  

More Physics

The Universe is nonmaterial (quantum physics)

• Evidence for the Afterlife: Quantum Mechanics
  

Intellectual Freedom

• The Politics of Suppression of Intelligent Design
  
• Survival of the Fakest
  

Below I have included, with the author's permission, the text of the slides shown during the talk by Doug Ell (typographical errors are most likely my own):

---

Science

• Observation, experimental verification, and explanation of natural phenomenon
  
• Figuring it out
  
• Follow the evidence wherever it leads
  
• "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman
  

God

• Abrahamic faith
  
  • Accident or design?
    

---

Seven Wonders of Modern Science

• Physics
  

  1. Created Universe
  
  2. Fine-Tuned Universe
  

• Biology
  

  3. Origin of Life
  
  4. Technology of Life
  
  5. Puzzles of Macroevolution
  

• More Physics
  

  6. Special Earth
  
  7. Universe is nonmaterial (quantum physics)
  

---

Counting To God
1. Creation

Why does anything exist?

Throughout history, two basic answers

• It just does, and always has
  
• God
  

Believers in eternal and infinite universe

• Aristotle
  
• Newton
  
• Einstein (originally)
  

---

1. Creation (cont'd)

• Dark night sky - Olber's "paradox"
  
• 1914: Vesto Silpher
  
  • fuzzy spots in the sky have "redshift"
    
• 1920s: Edwin Hubble
  
  • galaxies
    
  • speed proportional to distance (Hubble's law)
    

  Einstein - "I see the need for a beginning"

---

6:181. Creation (cont'd)

• Then two theories compete
  
  • "Big Bang" theory
    
    • All time/space and matter/energy created in a single instant from absolute nothingness
      
  • "Steady State" theory
    
    • matter created in voids keeps universe constant
      
• 1965: Penzias and Wilson at Bell Labs discover "cosmic microwave background radiation" by accident:
  
  • "relic"' photons rom the Big Bang (380K years after)
    

---

Counting To God
2. Fine-Tuning

• How can it all be so perfect?
  

• In physics, there are
  
  • 3 dimensions of space
    
  • 1 dimension of time
    
  • 4 fundamental forces
    
  • Many constants
    

• Accepted scientific fact:
  

  "the values of the numbers seem to have been very finely tuned to make possible the development of life"
  - Stephen Hawking
  

---

While explaining the above slide, Doug Ell said, "if we didn't have three dimensions of space, gravity wouldn't obey the inverse square law and planets wouldn't have stable orbits."

---

8:582. Fine-tuning (cont'd)

• Examples
  
  • Critical density of the universe/gravitational constant (less than one part in 10⁶⁰)
    
  • Nuclear resonance levels
    
    • Produce carbon and oxygen inside stars
      
    • "A superintellect has monkeyed with physics" - Fred Hoyle
      
  • Water
    
• Is there information in the structure of the universe?
  

---

9:232.Fine-tuning (cont'd)

• Atheist counter - "Multiverse"
  
• Multiverse concept based on 3 key beliefs
  
  • Our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes
    
  • Somehow, these universes have the ability to create other universes with different dimensions, laws, constants, and other features of physics
    
  • Somehow, for no special reason, all of this just exists
    
• But:
  
  • No scientific evidence of other universes
    
  • No idea how laws of physics can change
    
  • Infinity is an alien concept
    
  • Turtles all the way down?
    

---

11:17Counting To God
3. Origin of Life

• How did life begin?
  
• Ground rules:
  
  • Laws of physics and chemistry have not changed
    
  • No "natural selection"
    

---

12:203. Origin of Life (cont'd)

• Miller-Urey Experiment (1953)
  
  • Amino acids can be created by electrical charges
    
  • Later disavowed by both Miller and Urey as an explanation of the origin of life
    
  • Experiment now discredited - wrong atmosphere, no "primordial" soup, no way to link amino acids, can't set large amounts of information by accident
    
  • But, still in most high school textbooks
    

---

13:383. Origin of Life (cont'd)

• "Chicken and egg" problem
  
  • Need DNA to build proteins
    
  • Need proteins to read DNA
    
  • Which came first?
    
• Yale physicist Harold Morowitz calculated odds of life arising by chance as 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}
  
• Harvard's failed Origin of Life Initiative
  
• where did the information come from to create life?
  
• "No one knows how it got started" - Richard Dawkins
  

---

15:01Counting To God
4. Technology of Life

• How does life work?
  
• 150 years ago, cells were "homogeneous globules of protoplasm"
  
• Now know all life has same advanced digital operating system ("Central Dogma"):
  
  • Stores code in "letters" of DNA
    
  • Machines make copies of parts of code (messenger RNA)
    
  • Send copies to factories (ribosomes)
    
  • Factories (ribosomes) read code three "letters" at a time, to build proteins
    

---

16:39 4. Technology of Life (cont'd)

• By chance?
  
  • Genetic code (algorithm that "maps" 3 DNA "letters" to amino acids) is "highly optimal - significantly out performed 1 million randomly chosen alternate codes
    
  • No evidence of a different operating system
    
  • No known way operating system can evolve
    
• Futuristic information technology: "DNA is biological computer code, only far, far more advanced than anything we have ever built" - Bill Gates
  

---

4. Technology of Life (cont'd)

• Other amazing technology
  
  • DNA storage technology (histones)
    
  • Information retrieval technology
    
  • Splicing technology
    
  • Replication technology
    
    • 1,000 "letters" per second
      
    • Proofreading machines
      
    • Accurate to 1 letter in 1 billion
      
  • Repair technology
    
• Consider protein Histone H4: 102 amino acids, "highly conserved," 100 of these are the same in a pea and a cow (chance odds around 1 in 20¹⁰⁰?)
  

---

18:394. Technology of Life (cont'd)

• Where does information come from?
  
  • Imagine blind monkeys typing
    
  • If every particle in the universe (proton, neutron, and electron) was a monkey
    
  • Typing a letter every 10⁴³ seconds (typing ten million trillion trillion trillion letters a second, which if printed into books would fill a sphere 100 million miles in diameter every second)
    
  • For 14 billion years
    
• Highly unlikely that there will ever appear more than about 100 letters of specified information!
  

---

20:15Counting To God
5. Puzzles of Macroevolution

• "Evolution" commonly defined as "any process of formation or change"
  
• Charles Darwin in 1859: all species arose solely because of accidental mutations and natural selection
  
• Can natural selection create new information?
  
  • Problem is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest
    
  • Today more than 10 million species
    

---

21:265. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Your choice:
  
  • Accident (Darwin)?
    
  • Design (God)?
    
• Let's look at the facts
  

---

21:395. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Fact 1: Fossil Record
  
  • "Cambrian explosion": 70% of all "body plans" of all animals came into existence in a relatively short period
    
  • Biology's "big bang" - "Darwin's Doubt"
    
  • "Top-down" fossil record contradicts Darwin
    
  • Very few transitional organisms
    
    • "no one has ever found any in-between creatures" - Niles Eldredge
      
    • "Absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages...has been a nagging and persistent problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" - Stephen Jay Gould
      

---

23:275. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Fact 2: Little or no "Junk" DNA
  
  • Once thought only 1.5% of human DNA is useful
    
  • ENCODE (450 scientists) Sept. 2012
    
    • 80% of human genome has function
      
    • "It's likely 80% will go to 100%"
      
  • ENCODE Dec.2012
    
    • DNA contains a second code, multiple layers of information
      
  • ENCODE Jan. 2014
    
    At least 75% has function, may be underestimate

---

24:335. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Fact 3: Extreme Rarity of Functional Proteins
  
  • 1990 estimate by two MIT biologists: odds of getting a sequence of 92 amino acids to perform a specified function are 1 in 10⁶³
    
  • 2004 estimate: For 150 amino acids, odds of getting a specified function are 1 in 10⁷⁷; odds of getting any function are 1 in 10⁷⁴
    
  • But, in history of life, maybe 10⁴⁰ organisms, almost all one-celled
    
• Darwinian response: "cumulative selection"
  
  • Hang on to only "good" mistakes?
    
  • Gradual improvement of an engine while it is still running?
    

---

26:585. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Fact 4: Orphan Genes
  
  • All species sequenced to date have "orphan" genes ("designer" genes?) with no known relatives in other species
    
  • Help to make that species distinct - toxins in jellyfish, prevent freezing in polar cod
    
  • Leaf-cutter ant has 9,361 unique proteins, most of its genome
    
  • Darwinian theory has no mathematical clothes
    

---

28:285. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Fact 5: Many biological systems defy Darwinian logic
  
  • Loggerhead turtles navigate by Earth's magnetic field (also some fish and birds)
    
  • Caribbean reef squids communicate by the colors, patterns, and textures on their skin
    
  • Appendix "evolved" separately at least 32 times
    
  • Common Design, not common descent
    

---

29:575. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• Human beings
  
  • 30 trillion cells - 30,000,000,000,000 cells
    
  • Almost all have 3.2 billion "letters" of DNA
    
  • Codes for perhaps 100,000 proteins (mean length perhaps 430 amino acids)
    

---

30:325. Puzzles of Macroevolution (cont'd)

• To walk upright
  
  • 16 coordinated anatomical changes (spine, pelvis, knees, feet, toes, skull, etc.)
    
  • But time for specific mutation requiring two new DNA binding sites to happen and then becomes fixed estimated at 216 million years - Cornell scientists 2008
    
• The human brain
  
  • 54 human orphan genes that code for brain proteins
    
  • How can reason and creativity arise from a Darwinian process?
    
  • What is consciousness?
    

---

31:51Counting To God
6. Special Earth

Earth is special in its ability to sustain life over billions of years

• Right galaxy
  
  • Maybe 98% have less metal
• Right distance from the galactic center
  
  • Only 10% of stars are in GHZ
• Safe path through the galaxy
  
  • Nearly circular, inner edge of the Orion arm

---

23:146. Special Earth (cont'd)

• Right sun
  
  • Big (greater than 95%) but not too big
    
  • Stable life in 10 billion years
    
  • Solitary star, not in globular cluster
    
  • Stable energy output (one part in 1,000 over 11 year cycle)
    
• Right Solar System
  
  • Planets have circular orbits, spaced apart, same direction
    
  • Jupiter (vacuum cleaner of the solar system)
    
• Right place in the Solar System
  
  • CHZ permits liquid water
    

---

34:166. Special Earth (cont'd)

• Right Moon
  
  • No good theory on how mood was formed
    
  • Creates tides
    
  • Eclipse coincidence?
    
• Right ingredients
  
  • Water
    
  • Carbon
    
  • Molten iron core
    
  • Plate tectonics
    
• Odds of finding another equally suitable planet in our galaxy may be less than one in 100
  

---

34:19Counting To God
7. Universe is Nonmaterial

• Mathematics describes everything in physics
  
  • Mathematics is ideas
    
  • Whose ideas?
    
• Quantum physics defies materialistic concepts of reality
  
  • One-slit/two-slit experiment
    
  • Quantum entanglement
    
  • Quantum Zeno effect
    
• "In the beginning was the word"
  
  • Greek word "logos" - divine thought
    
• Could the foundation of the universe be mathematical concepts? - string theory
  

---

36:60The Logic of Belief

• Only intelligence can create meaningful information
  
• There is tremendous information in the structure of the universe, the origin of life, and every species
  

---

37:23Final Score:
God 7, Atheism 0

• Stand up for the wonder
  
  • Awe, astonishment, surprise, and admiration
    
• Stand up for the truth
  
• Stand up for tolerance
  countingtogod.com

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

The multiverse argument for the existence of paranormal phenomena.

Belief in God and intelligent design is supported by the evidence that our universe seems to have been improbably finely tuned for the existence of life. But even so, scientific knowledge of chemistry indicates the probability of life arising and evolving on earth is vanishingly small. Materialist have responded to these facts by proposing a "multiverse theory", a theory that there are a nearly infinite number of universes, each slightly different so that there is a chance of one like ours existing.

However, postulating a large number of universes does not help he materialist cause. In fact, it hurts it. In addition to the fact the multiverse theories themselves require fine tuning, one cannot escape the fact that if there are enough universes to explain the existence of our "improbable" universe as the result of chance, then there should be enough universes to provide the chance that our universe could also include God, spirits, Sasquatch, intelligent designer(s), UFOs, alien abductions, psi, etc, etc. The possibility of the multiverse is no reason to favor naturalism, but it is a reason for accepting the evidence for any paranormal phenomenon. If you believe in the multiverse, then anything is possible and you have no grounds to reject any paranormal phenomenon.

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle: "A superintellect has monkeyed with physics."

I have updated my web page on eminent researchers who believed in the evidence for some type of paranormal phenomena with the following entry on Fred Hoyle. I also added an entry for Hoyle in a recent post about scientists who believed that the scientific evidence shows that the universe was designed.

Sir Fred Hoyle

The article for Sir Fred Hoyle in Wikipedia describes him as an English astronomer who is most remembered for his work on how chemical elements are synthesized in stars (nucleosynthesis). He received many honors during his life including: Fellow of the Royal Society, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Royal Medal. He was Knighted in 1972. Hoyle did not win the Nobel Prize but many people thought he was unfairly excluded in 1983 when the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for nucleosynthesis in which he "had been one of the key and original workers". Hoyle resisted the implications of the Big Bang theory, a name which he was first to use. He tried to find a theory that would describe a steady state universe that did not have a beginning.

However, Hoyle believed the evidence that the universe was fine tuned by an intelligence and that life arose and evolved through intelligent design. This is similar to the cosmological argument that the universe must have been designed by an intelligent creator. Hoyle also believed the universe was designed for a purpose.

The following quotes explain Hoyle's views in his own words:

On the fine tuning of the universe:

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (Wikipedia)

Life is the product of intelligent design:

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. (Wikipedia)

Higher life forms did not evolve naturally:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [naturally] in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

- Hoyle on evolution, Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105 (Wikiquote)

Life did not arise naturally:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

- The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527 (Wikiquote)

The universe was designed for a purpose:

There is a coherent plan to the universe, though I don't know what it's a plan for.

- Attributed in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1999) edited by Elizabeth Knowles and Angela Partington (Wikiquote)

The blog "Uncommon Descent", quotes science historian Michael Flannery writing that Hoyle believed that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator.

I think it is a fair assessment to consider Hoyle a creationist in the broadest sense of the term. Yes, he rejected Darwinian evolution, and yes, he held to panspermia, but his book The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983) and other writings I think substantiate Theodore Walker’s assessment that Hoyle’s views accorded “with the religious idea of a supremely intelligent Creator-Provider-Sustainer of the universe” that was essentially panenthic and at least implicitly pro-theistic

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.