News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

The Goldilocks Dilemma

Started by pjkeeley, June 28, 2007, 06:32:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

pjkeeley

This is a question for science but also for philosophy.

What do you think of the Goldilocks Dilemma? There are a few recent books on this subject. I can't remember the titles so I couldn't look them up but I remember seeing them at the bookshop and being vaguely intrigued.

The idea is that, just like in Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the universe is 'just right' because it has the perfect conditions for life. For example, it has certain laws of physics, which are fixed. Why are they fixed and where do they come from? These are the kind of questions the Goldilocks Dilemma asks.

Obviously the whole idea could easily be accused of being anthropocentric. What's so significant about the emergence of life? Most atheists would say that life wasn't somehow an intended result, it just happened and so much the better. On the other hand we probably shouldn't dismiss just how monumentally huge the coincidence of our 'perfect universe' is without at least giving alternative theories some consideration (just the smart ones; fundamentalist religions need not apply).

This recent article from the Guardian is an interesting starting point for discussion.

I predict that most people here will be of the opinion that there really is no dilemma and that the laws of the universe and the conditions necessary for life just exist, without need of explanation. That's where my own thoughts lie too, but I'd be interested to discuss it further.

In case no one has a dissenting opinion I will try and play devil's advocate to make it more interesting.

Squid

#1
Perfect as compared to what other universes?

pjkeeley

#2
QuotePerfect as compared to what other universes?
I guess... a hypothetical universe or universes in which conditions are unsuitable for life? I don't know much in the way of science but I'm led to believe if the laws of phyics were even slightly different then conditions would be unsuitable for life.

Ugh, this is off to a poor start. 'Perfect' was a terrible choice of wording. Let's just allow all hypothetical universes to fall into either one of two categories: universes suitable for life and universes unsuitable for life. There are theories about a 'multiverse' as discussed in the article I linked to, so other hypothetical universes are at least considered a possiblity by some scientists. But even if this were the only universe, could it not have turned out differently? If not, why not?

Another question the article raises (or at least how I interpreted it in layman's terms) is: did the laws of physics arise within, and as a result of, the universe, or did the universe arise because the nature of any universe(s) that should arise was dictated by the laws of physics? What laws existed that allowed the big bang?

I think the point of the Goldilocks Dilemma is that at some point there has to be ultimate physical laws which have no source. (I think! Please correct me if I'm wrong!) If there are, why? As I pointed out in the original post, most atheists would be happy accepting that there are, but the point of this excercise is to at least question that belief.

(I'm hopeless at this because not only do I know nothing about the topic but I'm trying to argue against my own beliefs. If you want this discussion to go anywhere I suggest you try and interpret the article I linked to and refute that instead of me.)  :oops:

Also important to note is that this dicussion is not a proxy discussion for the existence of God. The article makes that quite clear.

Squid

#3
Well, we have no other universes to compare this one too.  Who is to say that universes could be any other way?  Perhaps our universe's laws of physics are this way because they cannot be any other way.

So far as is known conclusively (at least in our immediate vacinity - so far) Earth harbors the only life.  Also, it won't stay this way either.  Why Earth?  Why life on Earth?  In the solar system, Earth just happened to be formed in a "safe zone" from the sun.  If it wasn't Earth it could have been some other planet.  Eventually, as the sun gets older this safe zone will move and all life on Earth will die.  It's not a question of if but when.

I think in this concept people are giving more credit to the makeup of the universe and less credit (where it is usually due) to the tenacity of life.

Pre-big bang is difficult to tackle because our known laws of physics break down at a certain point and become unusable.  As for physical laws as we do know them, again upon what can we say it can be any other way?

SteveS

#4
Hi pj, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting article.

I see this whole dilemma being defined, to some degree, by looking backwards.  For example, if a neutron was not "a tad heavier" than a proton, all sorts of things could not exist in our universe but nevertheless the only end result that seems to bother us (in this context) is life.  This seems like an arbitrary end point to me.

The universe does appear finely balanced in some way, such that if one constant were off by a very small amount things would be drastically different.  I think in the end there could certainly be some natural explanation for why this is --- the constants and forces may be constrained to be the way they are for good reasons.  My idea here is really similar to Squid's post above me.  Why is the number pi what it is?  It's a simple ratio that is constrained, by what a "circle", "circumference" and "radius" are, to be exactly what it is.  It had no choice!  This isn't a direct analogy to the constants of the universe, but hopefully this expresses my idea.  There may turn out to be a natural explanation for why gravity is so weak, because of the way matter is built, which is built the way it is because of etc, etc, etc.

But, I'm really just guessing - I could easily be completely wrong.  I liked the author's idea, it was something I've never been exposed to before.  But I think he's guessing too  :wink:

My chief gripe with the "multiverse" is that I don't know what real evidence we have for it ... either that or I just don't understand why whatever evidence is claimed is compelling.  I'm trying to find out, though (reading books on the topic, once I get to them --- my reading list is always backed up --- so many books, so little time to read them  :(  ).

Will

#5
This universe on the whole is not set up to support carbon based life forms. We can't live in space. We can't live on any planets, planetoids, or moons that we have discovered so far. To our knowledge, only one planet in the universe supports life currently. The Earth is a fluke, and there is evidence to explain why in the theory of evolution. The Earth was and is rich in carbon, which is instrumental in creating covalent chemical bonds between nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water enable storage of the sun's energy in sugars. When sugars are oxidized, biochemical energy is created. This set of explainable, yet rare circumstances is responsible for who and what we all are now.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

pjkeeley

#6
Like I said:

QuoteI predict that most people here will be of the opinion that there really is no dilemma and that the laws of the universe and the conditions necessary for life just exist, without need of explanation.
And since I agree with you guys and can't think of anything more to add, I don't know if it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

Thread over?

Wait, one last thing before you go. There is a good article about this topic in the Skeptic Magazine. You can read it for free here, it's in PDF format, might take a while to load:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf

This article is really worth reading even if you have your mind already made up. It's just about as comprehensive a guide to the subject as you'd want to get, without getting too long and technical. Seriously good!

izult

#7
Recently new scientist, scientific American and national geographic all ran an article talking about how the search for life just got a little weirder.  In fact I think scientific American may have ran that as it's cover story.  Could be hugely wrong on that though.  It seems like they're starting to consider the possibility that life on other planets doesn't necessarily need to be carbon based in order to "survive" or evolve.  Here's the National Geographic article.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... liens.html  So as far as the "goldilocks" principal goes I would be more willing to say that there it is more likely that there are different "goldilocks" zones for each planetary system in the universe for life to come about and evolve not a static "goldilocks" zone for the universe as a whole.  Which when you consider all the possibilities is pretty f'in vast.

Dawkins addresses the whole "designer twiddling with knobs" thing very well in his book "The God Deulsion".  I highly recommend that and "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Dennet if you haven't read them yet.  "Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan is another I highly recommend.