Q&A: Evidence from Fine-Tuning
Evidence from Fine-Tuning
Question
I saw on Wikipedia an argument against fine-tuning as follows: “First, the fine-tuning might be an illusion: more fundamental physics may explain the apparent fine-tuning in physical parameters in our current understanding by constraining the values those parameters are likely to take. As Lawrence Krauss puts it, ‘certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to be so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.’” What do you think about that?
Answer
I addressed this in the book. This is nonsense, of course. In the end there are only two possibilities: 1. There is a minimal set of parameters whose precise values make chemistry, biology, and life possible. Those values are finely tuned. 2. All the parameter values can be explained mathematically, meaning that all of them are necessary by virtue of the definition of the physical variables. There is no third possibility.
But 2 means that there is no domain of natural science. Everything is a branch of mathematics. Therefore, in principle, no observations would be needed in order to know all the laws of physics and biology. No scientist believes that today. So we are left with 1. QED.