xrayzed: So you've refuted Stenger's argument? I seem to have missed this. Perhaps you could point me towards your refutation.
Stenger's paper, where was it published? Certainly it was
not peer reviewed (It looks like a rather hastily written first draft double-spaced, anyway its something like 24 pages); he makes several arguments many of them straw men, some necessary background explanation for a general audience, and lots of rhetorical puffery. I quote at length several passages that I essentially agree with and don't help his argument contra fine-tuning and I'll critique those I take issue with; Wikipedia says he's writing a book tentatively titled
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity.The element-synthesizing processes in stars depend sensitively on the properties and abundances of deuterium and helium produced in the early universe. Deuterium would not exist if the difference between the masses of a neutron and a proton were just slightly displaced from its actual value. The relative abundances of hydrogen and helium also depend strongly on this parameter. They, too, require a delicate balance of the relative strengths of gravity and the weak force, the force responsible for nuclear beta decay. A slightly stronger weak force, and the universe would be 100 percent hydrogen; all the neutrons in the early universe would have decayed, leaving none around to be saved in deuterium nuclei for later use inthe synthesizing elements in stars. A slightly weaker weak force, and few neutrons would have decayed, leaving about the same numbers of protons and neutrons; then, all the protons and neutrons would have been bound up in helium nuclei, with two protons and two neutrons in each. This would have led to a universe that was 100 percent helium, with no hydrogen to fuel the fusion processes in stars. Neither of these extremes would have allowed for the existence of stars and life as we know it based on carbon chemistry. The electron also enters into the tightrope act needed to produce the heavier elements. Because the mass of the electron is less than the neutron-proton mass difference, a free neutron can decay into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. If the mass of the electron were just a bit larger, the neutron would be stable and most of the protons and electrons in the early universe would have combined to form neutrons, leaving little hydrogen to act as the main component and fuel of stars. The neutron must also be heavier than the proton, but not so much heavier that neutrons cannot be bound in nuclei.
OK. I agree.
In 1952, astronomer Fred Hoyle used anthropic arguments to predict that an excited carbon nucleus has an excited energy level . . . . The success of this prediction gave credibility to anthropic reasoning, so let me discuss this example in detail since it is the only successful prediction of this line of inference so far.
No actually S. Weinburg also used the anthropic principal to critique leading quantum gravity predictions of the cosmological constant in a 1987 paper. And it's odd Stenger doesn't know it sense he cites a 1989 paper by Weinburg in his bibliography on the topic (Weinberg, Steven 1989. "The Cosmological Constant Problem." Reviews of Modern Physics 61, 1-23).
I have already noted that a delicate balance of physical constants was necessary for carbon and other chemical elements beyond lithium in the periodic table to be cooked in stars. Hoyle looked closely at the nuclear mechanisms involved and found that they appeared to be inadequate. . . . Hoyle (1954) showed that this still was not sufficient unless the carbon nucleus had a resonant excited state at 7.7 MeV to provide for a high reaction probability. A laboratory experiment was undertaken, and sure enough a previously unknown excited state of carbon was found at 7.66 MeV (Hoyle 1953).
Nothing can gain you more respect in science than the successful prediction of an unexpected new phenomenon. Here, Hoyle used standard nuclear theory. But his reasoning contained another element whose significance is still hotly debated. Without the 7.7 MeV nuclear state of carbon, our form of life based on carbon would not have existed. . . . the 7.7 MeV nuclear state seems unlikely to be the result of chance. The existence of these apparent numerical coincidences led [Brandon] Carter (1974) to introduce the notion of an anthropic principle, which hypothesizes that the coincidences are not the [sic] accidental but somehow built into the structure of the universe.
Barrow and Tipler (1986, 21) have identified three different forms of the anthropic principle, the Weak Anthropic Principal . . . The WAP merely states the obvious. If the universe was not the way it is, we would not be the way we are. But it is sufficient for predictions such as Hoyle's. . . .
"Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." This is essentially the form originally proposed by Carter, which suggests that the coincidences are not accidental but the result of a law of nature.
Emphasis mine. The 3rd is not pertinent to our discussion since I don't think anyone here would take it. Basically it's Wheeler's notion that the universe itself requires observers to satisfy certain strictures of quantum mechanics.
Let us examine the implicit assumptions here. First and foremost, and fatal to the design argument all by itself, is the wholly unwarranted assumption that only one type of life is possible--the particular form of carbon-based life we have here on Earth. Carbon seems to be the chemical element best suited to act as the building block for the type of complex molecular systems that develop lifelike qualities. Even today, new materials assembled from carbon atoms exhibit remarkable, unexpected properties, from superconductivity to ferromagnetism. However, to assume that only carbon life is possible is tantamount to "carbocentrism" that results from the fact that you and I are structured on carbon.
Given the known laws of physics and chemistry, we can easily imagine life based on silicon (computers, the Internet?) or other elements chemically similar to carbon. These still require cooking in stars and thus a universe old enough for star evolution.
Well computers or the internet are not likely to crawl up out of tide pools. Chip fab facilities use special "clean rooms".
Only hydrogen, helium, and lithium were synthesized in the early big bang. They are probably chemically too simple to be assembled into diverse structures. So, it seems that any life based on chemistry would require an old universe, with long-lived stars producing the needed materials.
Good point.
Sufficient complexity and long life may be the only ingredients needed for a universe to have some form of life. Those who argue that life is highly improbable need to open their minds to the possibility that life might be likely with many different configurations of laws and constants of physics. Furthermore, nothing in anthropic reasoning indicates any special preference for human life, or indeed intelligent or sentient life of any sort--just an inordinate fondness for carbon.
Good thing lots of it is made in stars.
. . . an amusing inconsistency that shows how promoters of design often use mutually contradictory logic: On the one hand the creationists and God-of-the-gaps evolutionists argue that nature is too uncongenial for life to have developed totally naturally, and so therefore supernatural input must have occurred. On the other hand, the fine-tuners (often the same people) argue that the constants and laws of nature are exquisitely congenial to life, and so therefore they must havebeen supernaturally created. They can't have it both ways.
Straw man. Names please.
I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime. This is hardly fine-tuning. Many more constants are needed to fill in the details of our universe.
680 million years is hardly sufficient for singe-celled life to develop.
I have analyzed 100 universes in which the values of the four parameters were generated randomly from a range five orders of magnitude above to five orders of magnitude below their values in our universe, that is, over a total range of ten orders of magnitude (Stenger 1995, 2000). I have also examined the distribution of stellar lifetimes for these same 100 universes (Stenger 1995, 2000). While a few are low, most are probably high enough to allow time for stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis. Over half the universes have stars that live at least a billion years.
Curiously he doesn't name the parameters in this paper, if one of them is the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism ~1:10
36 even five orders of magnitude may not be that significant and yet still he gets stars to shine just a billion years which would be insufficient for multi-cellular life to emerge, let alone a civilization.
I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. But anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
Another straw man.
Fine-Tuning the Cosmological Constant
Next, let me discuss an example of supposed fine-tuning that arises out of cosmology. This is the apparent fine-tuning of Einstein's cosmological constant within 120 orders of magnitude, without which life would be impossible.
In 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999). The universe is falling up! Once again, gravitational repulsion is indicated, possibly provided by a cosmological constant. Whatever is producing this repulsion, it represents 70 percent of the total mass-energy of the universe--the single largest component. This component has been dubbed dark energy to distinguish it from the gravitationally attractive dark matter that constitutes another 26 percent of the mass-energy.
Yeah, sounds interesting go on.
If dark energy is in fact the vacuum energy implied by a cosmological constant, then we have a serious puzzle called the cosmological constant problem (Weinberg 1989). As the universe expands, regions of space expand along with it. A cosmological constant implies a constant energy density, and the total energy inside a given region of space will increase as the volume of that region expands. Since the end of inflation, volumes have expanded by 120 orders of magnitude. This implies that the cosmological constant was "fine-tuned" to be 120 orders of magnitude below what it is now, a tiny amount of energy. If the vacuum energy had been just a hair greater at the end of inflation, it would be so enormous today that space would be highly curved and the stars and planets could not exist.
Best explanation of the problem I've heard to date. So basically what he's saying is that everything else he's said thus far is out the window if he can't reconcile this colossal improbability, I wonder why did't tackle the cc problem first?
However, recent theoretical work has offered a plausible non-divine solution to the cosmological constant problem. Theoretical physicists have proposed models in which the dark energy is not identified with the energy of curved space-time but rather a dynamical, material energy field called quintessence. . . .The energy density of quintessence is not constant
but evolves along with the other matter/energy fields of the universe. Unlike the cosmological constant, quintessence energy density need not be fine-tuned. While quintessence may not turn out to provide the correct explanation for the
cosmological constant problem, it demonstrates, if nothing else, that science is always hard at work trying to solve its puzzles within a materialistic framework.
But nice try.
The assertion that God can be seen by virtue of his acts of cosmological fine-tuning, like intelligent design and earlier versions of the argument from design, is nothing more than another variation on the disreputable God-of-thegaps argument.
And we're not even talking a "God of the gaps" any more, the nature of >95% of the universe is unknown to us. That's a pretty big gap. More like the sliver of what we know.
An Infinity of Universes
We have shown that conditions that might support some form of life in a random universe are not improbable. Indeed, we can empirically estimate the probability that a universe will have life.
We know of one universe, and that universe has life, so the "measured" probability is 100 percent, albeit with a large statistical uncertainty.
Sounds like Oldskeptic.
Multiuniverses are certainly a possible explanation, but a multitude of other, different universes is not the sole naturalistic explanation available for the particular structure of our universe. However, if many universes beside our own exist, then the anthropic coincidences are a no-brainer. Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in a super-universe or multiverse. . . . If, indeed, multiple universes exist, then we are simply in that particular universe of all the logically consistent possibilities that had the properties needed to produce us.
Standby Principal of mediocrity meets WAP.
Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a form different from ours; others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life. Other multiverse scenarios have been discussed by Smith(1990), Smolin(1992, 1997), and Tegmark(2003). No known principle rules out the existence of other universes which, furthermore, are suggested by modern cosmological models. . . . Specifically, we would need to hypothesize a new principle to rule out all but a single universe.
One gross and fatal assumption is that only one kind of life, ours, is conceivable in every conceivable configuration of universes. However, a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes. Although not required to negate the fine-tuning argument, which falls of its own weight, other universes besides our own are not ruled out by fundamental physics and cosmology. The theory of a multiverse composed of many universes with different laws and physical properties is actually more parsimonious, more consistent with Occam's razor, than a single universe.
I kid you not these were Stenger's best arguments from probably the most cited paper on the internet critical of fine tuning arguments -- and I agree with probably half of it. 1. No form of life could emerge out of hard vacuum which is what the universe would be within a margin of a few parts in 10
120. 2. In 100 tries he could only get half his universes' stars to last a billion years which would be insufficient for the emergence and evolution of live and development of civilization.
by 
