If science were just bookkeeping, fine-tuning wouldn’t matter

If science were just bookkeeping, fine-tuning wouldn’t matter

Both science and science fiction fare better in A Finely tuned A universe where laws truly rule and have meaning. This means that minds can be discovered because they are products of the mind, whether that mind is understood in traditional religious terms, in comprehensive psychological terms, or some other term.

Marcelo Glaser

This appears to be the universe we live in, which is deeply troubling to many prominent minds in science, including a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College. Marcelo Glaser. He ran into the problem in Big thought Earlier this month, he made clear that he believes we are being forced to make an unnecessary choice:

It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks World,” perfectly adapted to the existence of life. Once the story is framed in this way, there are three possibilities: (1) it is just an accident—that is, the universe is what it is, and we are the ones telling the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) There is a “fine-checker,” and what you call a “fine-checker” is up to you, whether God or panpsychism (see my conversation last week with the philosopher Philip Goff), and the goal of the universe is intelligent life; Or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our universe just happens to be the one in which things work for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you’d better accept the multiverse.

Marcelo Glazer, “Is the Universe Ready for Life? Here are 3 answers Thinking Big, November 15, 2023

He suggests an alternative:

If we take a historical approach to how we construct our current physical picture of the universe, we realize that the constants of nature are measured parameters that we use to create models that describe what we see. We measure the mass and charge of an electron, the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the masses of quarks, and then use these values ​​in models that describe how particles and objects interact with each other. It is clear – and not surprising – that the only reason we can measure these values ​​is because we are here.

Marcelo Glazer,Here are 3 answers

When he resorts to accusing those who offer alternatives to “astronomy,” he seems to realize that his answer will not be successful either. After all, we could be accused of “astronomical nihilism” if we cannot reach conclusions about the big picture based on the patterns we see.

See also  Não gosta de abraços? Descubra o porquê de acordo com a ciência

Of course this wouldn’t work because humans are naturally inclined to form conclusions based on observations. The usual requirement is that conclusions follow logically and reasonably from observations. Glaeser can only salvage the theoretical physics of the universe by turning it into something akin to bookkeeping, without any regard to the kind of enterprise for which the books are kept. This type of work is best suited for computers, not people.

He is responding in part to his conversation a week ago with a professor of philosophy at Durham University philip gove, Champion of universal spirituality. jove’s new book, Why? The purpose of the universe (Oxford University Press, 2023), approaches fine-tuning from the perspective of panpsychism, not theism. Ace Joof Tell him, “Panpsychism is the theory that consciousness goes back to the fundamental structure of matter. Fundamental particles or fields contain incredibly primitive forms of consciousness, and the complex consciousness of the human and animal brain is somehow shaped by these fundamental forms of consciousness.

Goff’s approach creates major problems for thinkers in Glazer’s position. The usual defenders of fine tuning They are believers. But suppose, like Goff, we put theism aside and focus on the unsolved problem of consciousness. Consciousness studies, after all, seem to be degenerating into a complete disaster, interspersed with direct political discussions about a hot-button issue (abortion). One consequence is that there is no evidence-based reason to reject Goff’s comprehensive theory at face value. A comprehensive psychological philosophy will predict the exact exact same, just as theism does.

Worse still for Glaeser is that it has become clear that there is no evidence-based reason to reject theism as an explanation of fine-tuning. And people, in general, will not stop looking for an explanation.

See also  A Universidade UM6P organiza a Semana da Ciência sob o lema: Dentro dos limites da ciência

It’s a perfect storm. But maybe some good sci-fi will come out of it.

You may also like to read: Does the evidence for the fine-tuning of our universe mean anything? Why isn’t the divine mind “scientific” if the evidence points in that direction? Philosopher Anthony Flew believed that evidence matters; This is why fine tuning transformed him from atheism to deism. Can science dispense with the evidence base?

And

If holistic spirituality is the trend now, will fine-tuning be the next step? In his new book, holistic psychologist Philip Goff calls for cosmic tuning and cosmic purpose. Can Goff convince the gatekeepers of science to accept fine-tuning simply by criticizing traditional religion? If he does, we’ll definitely know that things are changing.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Irene Alves

"Bacon ninja. Guru do álcool. Explorador orgulhoso. Ávido entusiasta da cultura pop."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *