SZ: But I write this mainly to dispute your claim that "there must be millions"
of possible physical laws that would support life. It seems to me that
what evidence there is on this topic, even though it is not complete,
points in the opposite direction. So why are you so confident in your
assertion?
Pim: As far as WE understand life, it seems that the universe was
"designed" with us in mind. Of course a logical alternative is that
we were the result of the universe not the other way around.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pim, it is a causal necessity that "we are the result of the universe".
What on earth would it mean that "the universe is the result of us"?
In my view there is no merit in the suggestion that somehow human
observers "cause" the universe. Such drivel is sometimes seen in
poor quality popular-level presentations of the anthropic principle,
or in Tipler's way-out "Participatory Anthropic Principle". So
I fail to see how your "logical alternative" is an alternative
at all. We (life forms of any kind, not specifically humans) are
indeed the result of the unfolding development of the universe from
the initial creation event to the present time. The point in question
is how to interpret the extensive evidence that the physical laws
(their mathematical form as well as their coupling constants) and
the initial conditions of the universe are "finely-tuned" to allow
the development of an environment hospitable for life.
Let me again offer the options (as i see them):
1. fine-tuning is evidence for purposeful design (compatible with
theism, but not necessarily compelling evidence for it)
2. fine tuning is an illusion, explained away by the existence of
many universes with many different possible sets of laws of physics.
3. the universe we live in is finely-tuned, but in a deterministic way;
i.e., a "theory of everything" in physics will reveal deeper, underlying
laws that predetermine the laws of physics, constants of nature, even the
initial conditions of the universe.
4. fine-tuning is overrated; there "must be" many other combinations
of physical laws that somehow would support the existence of some kind
of life, even if we have no idea how its energy-transfer processes
would take place (on the surface of a neutron star, perhaps).
5. a finely-tuned universe is just a brute fact and requires no
further explanation...
Perhaps there are others...what do you think?
My own judgment is that among physicists, (3) is the most popular
option. However, even if underlying laws are discovered someday
that explain how the universe HAD to develop in the way that it did,
one may still ask the question "Where did these laws come from?".
I don't think science can give a satisfying answer to that question.
One more point: Of the options above, (1) and (3) are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. It is possible to adopt (1) as a tentative conclusion
based on the evidence we have to date, but remain open to (and even be involved
in) research that might point the way to (3) in the future.
Brian, I hope I haven't muddled this up too badly. Can you
comment?
Stan Zygmunt