Fine Tuning of the Universe

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics..."

The stability of our Universe is a fact, but physicists and philosophers debate why our Universe is stable. Physicists claim that if the laws of nature or their fundamental constants would be different our Universe would not exist or would be unsuitable to life. The mathematical probability that all twenty-six fundamental constants have values favorable for stable universe and existence of life is extremely low. Against all odds, it exists - it is our universe. There is a general agreement among scientists that our universe is fine-tuned for life. There are several explanations the origin of “fine tuning.” One hypothesizes that there are infinitely many universes in Multiverse, and most of them are either unstable (short lifespan) or unsuitable to life. However, given the small but finite probability of all fundamental constants fall into desirable range, there must be some universes that are stable and suitable for life. Ours is one of them. Another view is that stability and suitability to life of our universe indicates the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer. Yet another explanation is that fundamental constraints’ values are what they are by random chance or by blind necessity. One notable view is that we should not be surprised to live in the universe which supports life. All these theories do not belong to science, they are philosophical or theological concepts. The random generator of infinitely many universes is as empirically unprovable as an intelligent designer. It is also questionable that the formation of our universe could have been driven by random or blind forces of nature which must have preceded nature itself.

It is important to note that the concept of fine tuning applies only to our models of reality, and not reality itself. Fundamental constants are parameters of our mathematical models of reality, which are derived by calibrating the models to our measurements. Physicists use this term because they model reality with mathematical formalism and various parameters. This fact is often overlooked. Models of reality have been changing since ancient times. New data that does not fit into existing models leads to model revisions. Even now there are several theories that challenge General Relativity theory and constant speed of light. Neither Nature nor God uses math to simulate reality. They are reality. They balance things without minding any physical models, math, or constants invented by humans.

Famous physicist Eugene Wigner in 1960 published an essay “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” Wigner marveled at how abstract mathematical concepts, developed without specific application in mind, often turn out to describe the physical world with astonishing precision: "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve." Some interpreted this as repetition of Platonic ideas about math preceding physical reality. But some implied that math may have been a tool the Creator used to design a stable World. However, a baby learns to walk and keep balance before she learns math. And an acrobat does not solve equations and find proper angles in order to balance a pole standing on the palm of his hand or to walk across the tightrope. No, he feels stability and intuitively corrects the position of his hand or body to stay in the stable zone. Similarly, a painter chooses the colors of his painting without measuring their spectra. It’s the intuition and feeling a feedback that makes it doable. Putting the universe in a stable state is just as natural as balancing a stick if driving forces are not blind and random. Thus, the probability of a stable universe is not extremely small as the models of reality suggest. Our universe is stable because it is the natural condition of its existence. Take any stable system, say a molecule or a cell, and apply probability theory. It will tell you that the spontaneous existence of this system is extremely unlikely. But it exists and contradicts improperly applied probability theory, just like our world exists against all odds. I think math is the product of our curious mind trying to organize ever expanding knowledge in a compact and logical way.

The complexity of the stability problem that scientists are trying to solve originates from our reductionist analysis method – divide and conquer. The wholeness of reality is lost in this method, and simplicity is lost alongside. It is our model of reality, not reality itself, that is very complex. Reality is more than models and math. If we reject the Creator or Intelligent Designer concept, we must reject the pre-existence of blind forces. Nature evolves along with the “laws” of nature [1]. The survivability is the primary driving force of this evolution – that is why it leads to stable universe. On the other hand, if we accept the Creator, then He doesn’t care about human-invented mathematical constants; he cares about the quality of his creation and retains only what is good… or beautiful. Our world must have met these criteria. Why bother to create a dull world or a void?

The Creator is outside time; in His view the creation is complete, although from our spacetime viewpoint our Universe is still evolving. Humans as intelligent agents endowed with free will and creativity play important role – they participate in the creation of this world via trials and errors.

Reference

1.