Table of Contents
The idea that physics seems to be optimized for life is among the most astonishing scientific findings of the last several years. This implies that a very specific range of numbers in physics has to be met in order for life to exist.
The amount of dark energy, which drives the universe’s accelerating expansion, is one example of fine-tuning that most puzzles physicists. Matter would not have been able to cluster together if that force had been somewhat stronger. There would have been no stars, planets, or any structural complexity if two particles had never joined, and hence no life.
That force would not have counteracted gravity if it had been much weaker. This implies that there would have been no stars, planets, or life in the universe if it had collapsed back on itself in the first instant of time. The strength of dark energy needed to be “just right,” like Goldilocks’ porridge, in order for life to be possible.
There are numerous such examples; this is but one.
The most widely accepted theory explaining how physics has been fine-tuned is that we are inhabitants of one universe out of many. It increases the likelihood that someone may purchase a lottery ticket and have the correct numbers to win. Similarly, it becomes likely that some universe will contain the proper numbers for life if there are enough worlds with various numbers in their physics.
This was the most logical explanation for fine-tuning for a very long time. But as I discuss in my new book, Why?, professionals in the field of probability mathematics have recognized the inference from fine-tuning to multiverse as an example of erroneous thinking. The Universe’s Intention. It specifically accuses proponents of multiverse theory of what is known as the inverse gambler’s fallacy.
Imagine that one night, when Betty is the only player in her neighborhood bingo hall, she has a phenomenal run of luck and all of her numbers come up in the first minute. “There must be a lot of people playing bingo in other bingo halls tonight,” Betty muses to herself. She argues that it is not that unlikely that someone would get all of their numbers called out in the first minute if there are many players around the nation.
However, this is an example of the fallacy of the inverted gambler. Probability theory states that it is not more likely that Betty herself would have such a run of luck, regardless of the number of players in other bingo rooms across the nation.
It resembles rolling dice. We incorrectly believe that our chances of getting sixes in the ensuing throws are decreased if we string together multiple sixes. Furthermore, we mistakenly believe that there must have been a ton of sixes in the past if we don’t receive any for a time. However, every throw actually has an identical and precise one in six chance of landing on a certain number.
Theorists of the multiverse make the same mistake. “There must be many other universes out there with the wrong numbers,” they surmise, reflecting on how unlikely it is that our universe has the right numbers for life. However, this is similar to Betty’s belief that she can attribute her good fortune to other individuals playing bingo.
Similar to a die throw, this particular universe had a specified, low chance of getting the right numbers when it was formed.
Multiverse theorists now introduce the “anthropic principle,” which holds that since we are here, we could not have witnessed a universe unsuitable for life. But that does not imply the nonexistence of these other universes.
Assume that a psychotic marksman is concealed in the rear of the bingo hall, ready to murder Betty at any time a number appears that isn’t on her card. Now, the scenario is comparable to fine-tuning in the actual world: just as we could not have witnessed a cosmos with the wrong numbers for life, Betty could only have observed the numbers she needed to win.
Nevertheless, Betty would be incorrect to assume that bingo is a popular game. Similar to this, multiverse theorists’ conclusions on fine-tuning to multiple worlds are incorrect.
Regarding the multiverse, what is the situation?
But isn’t there empirical proof of a multiverse? Both yes and no. Surprisingly, no one has ever examined the links between the inverse gambler’s fallacy and the scientific evidence for the multiverse, as I do in my book.
The multiverse is supported by the scientific hypothesis of inflation, which holds that the early cosmos expanded enormously in size. If inflation is possible, it is probably occurring in various regions of space, giving rise to separate universes. There is no proof that the numbers in the many universes’ local physics differ, even if this could provide us with hints of a multiverse of some sort.
The failure of the multiverse explanation has a deeper cause. The requirement of entire evidence, which requires us to use the most precise evidence we have access to, is the guiding concept of probabilistic reasoning.
When it comes to fine-tuning, the most concrete proof available to those who hold the multiverse theory is not just that a world exists, but that this particular one is fine-tuned. It is highly unlikely that this particular world, as opposed to any other among millions, would be fine-tuned if we accept the multiverse theory that the constants of our universe were produced by probabilistic processes. The theory falls short of explaining the evidence after we formulate it correctly.
According to accepted scientific theory, these numbers haven’t changed since the Big Bang. If this is accurate, we have a decision to make. Either way, or it’s a remarkable coincidence that the numbers in our universe match. Alternatively, the numbers reflect the way in which some unseen, innate principle drives or directs nature to produce complexity and life. The first option seems too unlikely to be taken seriously, in my opinion. In my book, I offer a hypothesis of the second choice, cosmic purpose, and explore how it relates to the meaning and purpose of humanity.
This is not what we anticipated from science. It’s comparable to the early discoveries that the universe was not flat, which began to emerge in the 16th century. Many people found it difficult to believe that the reality they had become accustomed to did not adequately explain the findings.
I think the fine-tuning situation we’re in right now is the same. One day, we might be shocked that we spent so much time ignoring the obvious: that life exists because the cosmos is biased in favor of it.
read also : US Marines Test AI Weapon-Equipped Robot Dogs 2024
Is the Multiverse Real? Why One Force Still Baffles Most Physicists (msn.com)