يقول
سبحانه
وتعالى:
(تَبَارَكَ
الَّذِي
نَزَّلَ
الْفُرْقَانَ
عَلَىٰ
عَبْدِهِ
لِيَكُونَ
لِلْعَالَمِينَ
نَذِيرًا (1) الَّذِي
لَهُ مُلْكُ
السَّمَاوَاتِ
وَالْأَرْضِ
وَلَمْ
يَتَّخِذْ
وَلَدًا
وَلَمْ يَكُن
لَّهُ
شَرِيكٌ فِي
الْمُلْكِ
وَخَلَقَ
كُلَّ شَيْءٍ
فَقَدَّرَهُ
تَقْدِيرًا ) ( الفرقان 1 - 2).
ALLAH (GOD) says in Quraan:
(1) (Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion upon His Servant
that he may be to the worlds a warner –) (Al-Furqaan
Aya 1).
(2) (He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth
and who has not taken a son and has not had a partner in dominion and has
created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination. ) (Al-Furqaan Aya 2). [[1]]
ويقول
سبحانه
وتعالى: (إِنَّا
كُلَّ شَيْءٍ
خَلَقْنَاهُ
بِقَدَرٍ) (القمر
49).
ALLAH says in Quraan:
(Indeed, all
things we created with predestination and [precise] determination.) (Al-Qamar
Aya 49). [[2]]
ويقول
سبحانه
وتعالى: (سَبِّحِ
اسْمَ
رَبِّكَ
الْأَعْلَى * الَّذِي
خَلَقَ
فَسَوَّىٰ * وَالَّذِي
قَدَّرَ فَهَدَىٰ)
(الأعلى: 1- 3).
And in Surat Al-A'laa (الأعلى)
(1) Exalt
the name of your Lord, the Most High,
(2) Who
creates things in proportion and best shapes
(3) And who
destined, determines precisely, and [then] guides.
(الَّذِي
خَلَقَ
فَسَوَّىٰ) : أي خلق
الخليقة وسوى
كل مخلوق في
أحسن الهيئات. (وَالَّذِي
قَدَّرَ
فَهَدَىٰ): هذه
الآية كقوله
تعالى إخبارا
عن موسى أنه
قال لفرعون : (قَالَ
رَبُّنَا
الَّذِي
أَعْطَىٰ
كُلَّ شَيْءٍ
خَلْقَهُ
ثُمَّ هَدَىٰ) ( طه : 50 ) أي :
قدر قدرا ،
وهدى الخلائق
إليه ، كما
ثبت في صحيح
مسلم ، عن عبد
الله بن عمرو :
أن رسول الله - صلى
الله عليه
وسلم - قال : " إن
الله قدر
مقادير
الخلائق قبل
أن يخلق السموات
والأرض
بخمسين ألف
سنة ، وكان
عرشه على الماء
" .
(تفسير ابن
كثير).
)لَقَدْ
خَلَقْنَا ٱلْإِنسَٰنَ
فِىٓ
أَحْسَنِ
تَقْوِيمٍۢ) (التين
4).
(4) We have
certainly created man in the best of stature;
أي:
تام الخلق،
متناسب
الأعضاء،
منتصب القامة،
لم يفقد مما
يحتاج إليه
ظاهرًا أو
باطنًا شيئًا.
ويقول
سبحانه
وتعالى: (وَأَنْزَلْنَا
مِنَ
السَّمَاءِ
مَاءً بِقَدَرٍ
فَأَسْكَنَّاهُ
فِي الأرْضِ
وَإِنَّا
عَلَى
ذَهَابٍ بِهِ
لَقَادِرُونَ
* فَأَنْشَأْنَا
لَكُمْ بِهِ
جَنَّاتٍ
مِنْ نَخِيلٍ
وَأَعْنَابٍ
لَكُمْ
فِيهَا فَوَاكِهُ
كَثِيرَةٌ
وَمِنْهَا
تَأْكُلُونَ *
وَشَجَرَةً
تَخْرُجُ مِنْ
طُورِ
سَيْنَاءَ
تَنْبُتُ
بِالدُّهْنِ
وَصِبْغٍ
لِلآكِلِينَ ) (المؤمنون
–سورة 23- آية 18).
And in Surat Al-Muminoon (23
( المؤمنون Aya )18)
(18) And We have sent
down water from the sky in a measured amount and settled it in the earth. And
indeed, We are Able to take it away.
ويقول
سبحانه
وتعالى: (وَالَّذِي
نَزَّلَ مِنَ
السَّمَاءِ
مَاءً بِقَدَرٍ
فَأَنشَرْنَا
بِهِ
بَلْدَةً مَّيْتًا
ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ
تُخْرَجُونَ (11)
وَالَّذِي
خَلَقَ
الْأَزْوَاجَ
كُلَّهَا وَجَعَلَ
لَكُم مِّنَ
الْفُلْكِ
وَالْأَنْعَامِ
مَا
تَرْكَبُونَ (12) لِتَسْتَوُوا
عَلَىٰ
ظُهُورِهِ
ثُمَّ تَذْكُرُوا
نِعْمَةَ
رَبِّكُمْ
إِذَا اسْتَوَيْتُمْ
عَلَيْهِ
وَتَقُولُوا
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي
سَخَّرَ
لَنَا هَٰذَا
وَمَا كُنَّا
لَهُ
مُقْرِنِينَ (13) وَإِنَّا
إِلَىٰ
رَبِّنَا
لَمُنقَلِبُونَ
(14) وَجَعَلُوا
لَهُ مِنْ
عِبَادِهِ
جُزْءًا ۚ إِنَّ
الْإِنسَانَ
لَكَفُورٌ
مُّبِينٌ (15))
(الزخرف - سورة 43).
And in Surat Al-
(
43 ( الزخرف
Aya )11)
(11) And who sends down water (rain) from the sky in
measured amounts, and We revive thereby a dead lan;
likewise will you be brought forth .
Fine-tuned
Universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe).
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the
conditions that allow life in the Universe can
occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie
within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental
constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be
conducive to the establishment and development of matter,
astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1][2][3][4]
Various possible explanations of ostensible fine-tuning are discussed
among philosophers, scientists, theologians,
and proponents and detractors of creationism.
The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but not exactly
synonymous with the anthropic principle,
which is often used as an explanation of apparent fine-tuning.
History[edit]
In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942)
wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books
to explore concepts of fine tuning in the universe. Henderson discusses the
importance of water and the environment with
respect to living things, pointing out that life depends entirely on the very
specific environmental conditions on Earth, especially with regard to the
prevalence and properties of water.[5]
In 1961, physicist Robert
H. Dicke claimed that certain forces
in physics,
such as gravity and electromagnetism,
must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the universe.[6][7] Fred
Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his
1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of
obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino
acids to a star
system full of blind men solving Rubik's
Cube simultaneously".[8]
John
Gribbin and Martin
Rees wrote a detailed history and defence
of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989).
According to Gribbin and Rees, "The conditions
in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like
ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity. But the
question remains – is the Universe tailor-made for man?"[2]
Premise[edit]
The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change
in several of the dimensionless physical constants would make the universe
radically different. As Stephen
Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know
them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the
electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and
the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem
to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of
life."[4]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons
would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[9] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[10]The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that
physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are.
The current standard model of particle physics has
25 freely adjustable parameters and general relativity has
one additional parameter, the cosmological constant,
which is known to be non-zero,
but profoundly small in value. However, because the standard model is not
mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high
energies, at which both quantum
mechanics and general relativity are
relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by
some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string
theory, or loop quantum gravity.
In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants
may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a
fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from
other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the
small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably
precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of
the Standard Model of particle physics,
the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."[11]
Examples[edit]
Martin
Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in
terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[1][12]
·
N,
the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to
the strength of gravity for
a pair of protons, is approximately 1036.
According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and
short-lived universe could exist.[12]
·
Epsilon (ε),
a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium,
is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is
converted to energy. The value of ε is in part
determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[13] If
ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be
impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist,
as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big
bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that
substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant
increases by less than about 50%.[10][12]
·
Omega (Ω),
commonly known as the density parameter,
is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It
is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the
"critical density" and is approximately 1.
If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric
expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On
the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
·
Lambda (λ),
commonly known as the cosmological constant,
describes the ratio of the density of dark
energy to the critical energy density of
the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions
such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck
units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the
cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This
is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are
smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were
not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able
to form.[12]
·
Q,
the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy
apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5.
If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive
because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
· D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime
, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.[12]Carbon and oxygen[edit]
Further information: Triple-alpha process
§ Improbability and fine-tuning
An older example is the Hoyle
state, the third-lowest energy state of the carbon-12 nucleus,
with an energy of 7.656 MeV above the ground level.
According to one calculation, if the state's energy level was lower than 7.3 or
greater than 7.9 MeV, insufficient carbon would exist to support life.
Furthermore, to explain the universe's abundance of carbon, the Hoyle state
must be further tuned to a value between 7.596 and 7.716 MeV. A similar
calculation, focusing on the underlying fundamental constants that give rise to
various energy levels, concludes that the strong
force must be tuned to a precision of at least 0.5%,
and the electromagnetic force to a precision of at least 4%, to prevent either
carbon production or oxygen production from dropping significantly.[16]
Disputes regarding the existence and
extent of fine-tuning[edit]
Physicist Paul
Davies has asserted that "There
is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is
in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he
continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned
for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that
life requires." He also states that "'anthropic'
reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic
universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and
optimally biophilic universes, in which life
flourishes because abiogenesis occurs
frequently".[17] Among
scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have
been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along
with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states
"that no possible astronomical observations can ever
see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists,
it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[18]
Regarding recently discovered dark
energy and its implication on the cosmological constant, Leonard
Susskind says "The great mystery is not why there is
dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10−122]...
The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy
were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that's the mystery." A
slightly larger quantity of dark energy, or a slightly
larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to
expand rapidly enough that galaxies would not form.[19] Despite
this, Susskind does not necessarily see the universe as being fine-tuned,
suggesting that some parts of the "megaverse"
in which we live might just, by chance, be suitable
for the emergence of life, while other parts might not be.[20]
Steven
Weinberg rejects the argument about the fine-tuning of
the carbon cycle, arguing that "the fine-tuning of the constants of nature
here does not seem so fine". He acknowledges that he currently has no
explanation (apart from a multiverse) for the smallness of the cosmological
constant, but cautions that "It is still too early to tell whether there
is some fundamental principle that can explain why the cosmological constant
must be this small."[21][22]
Physicist Victor
Stenger objected to the fine-tuning, and
especially to theist use of fine-tuning arguments. His
numerous criticisms included what he called "the wholly unwarranted
assumption that only carbon-based life is possible.
There is no good reason, says Stenger,
to "assume that there's only one kind of life possible" – we know far
too little about life in our own universe, let alone "other"
universes, to reach such a conclusion. Stenger
denounces as "carbon chauvinism" the assumption that life requires
carbon; other chemical elements, such as silicon, can also form molecules of
considerable complexity. Indeed, Stenger ventures, it
is "molecular chauvinism" to assume that molecules are required at
all; in a universe with different properties, atomic nuclei or other structures
might assemble in totally unfamiliar ways. ."[23]
وهذا
يذكرنا
بالعبارة
المشهورة: " إن
اللهَ يعلم ما
كان وما يكون
، وما لم يكن
لو كان كيف يكون "
القدر له مراتب
أربع: العلم، ثم
الكتابة، ثم الإرادة
والمشيئة، ثم الخلق
والإيجاد ([3]).
"وأما علم
الله: فإنه سبحانه
يعلم ما كان، وما
سيكون، وما هو
كائن، وما لم يكن
لو كان كيف يكون،
لا يخفى عليه من
ذلك صغيرة ولا
كبيرة.
وعليه:
فالعلم أعم من
القدر، فكل قدر
قد علمه الله،
وليس كل علم يقدره؛
لأن من علم الله
علم ما لم يكن لو
كان كيف يكون،
قال ابن كثير: فأخبر
بأنه يعلم ما كان
وما يكون وما لم
يكن لو كان كيف
كان يكون.
قال
ابن تيمية في الفتاوى: والله
تعالى يعلم ما
كان وما يكون وما
لا يكون أن لو كان
كيف كان يكون،
وهو سبحانه قد
قدر مقادير الخلائق،
وكتب أعمال العباد
قبل أن يعملوها،
كما ثبت ذلك فى
صريح الكتاب والسنة
وآثار السلف، ثم
إنه يأمر الملائكة
بكتابتها بعد ما
يعملونها، فيقابل
بين الكتابة المتقدمة
على الوجود والكتابة
المتأخرة عنه،
فلا يكون بينهما
تفاوت، هكذا قال
ابن عباس وغيره
من السلف.
وفي
شرح النووي على
صحيح مسلم:
وفي قوله صلى
الله عليه وسلم:
"الله أعلم بما
كانوا عاملين"
بيان لمذهب أهل
الحق أن الله علم
ما كان وما يكون
وما لا يكون لو
كان كيف كان يكون."
In turn, the astrophysicist Luke Barnes
has criticized much of Stenger's work.[24]
The validity of fine
tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds
that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied
to natural physical
constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the
anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[25]
The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination,
as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon
chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or
other forms of life are possible.[26] Regarding
this, Stenger argued: "We have no reason to
believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible.
Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple
universes may exist with different constants and laws of
physics. So, it is not
surprising that we live in the one suited for us.
The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the
universe."[27]
In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe
through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to
humans (see puddle
thinking, below). They also see it as an example of the
logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in
its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe.[28]
Possible naturalistic explanations[edit]
There are fine tuning arguments that
are naturalistic.[29]:125 First,
as mentioned in premise section the
fine tuning might be an illusion: we don't know the true number of independent
physical constants, which could be small and even reduce to one. And we don't
know either the laws of the "potential universe factory", i.e. the
range and statistical distribution ruling the "choice" for each
constant (including our arbitrary choice of units and precise set of
constants). Still, as modern cosmology developed various hypotheses not
presuming hidden order have been proposed. One is an oscillatory
universe or a multiverse,
where fundamental physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves
to random values
in different iterations of reality.[30] Under
this hypothesis, separate parts of reality would have wildly different
characteristics. In such scenarios, the appearance of fine-tuning is explained
as a consequence of the weak anthropic principle and selection
bias(specifically survivor
bias) that only those universes with fundamental constants
hospitable to life (such as the universe we observe) would have living beings
emerge and evolve capable of contemplating the questions of origins and of
fine-tuning. All other universes would go utterly unbeheld
by any such beings.
Multiverse[edit]
Main article: Multiverse
The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with
different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life
(see multiverse: anthropic principle).
Because we are intelligent beings, it is unsurprising that we find ourselves in
a hospitable universe if there is such a multiverse. The Multiverse hypothesis
is therefore thought to provide an elegant explanation of the finding that we
exist despite the required fine-tuning. (See [31] for
a detailed discussion of the arguments for and against this suggested
explanation.)
The multiverse idea has led to considerable research into the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to particle physicists, because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants vary widely. As yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions that some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon.[32]Some multiverse theories are not falsifiable, thus scientists may be reluctant to call any multiverse theory "scientific". UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe,[33] although this claim was recently refuted as the WMAP cold spot was found to be nothing more than a statistical artifact.[34] Variants on this approach include Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection, the Ekpyrotic
universe, and the Bubble universe theory.— Alvin Plantinga,
"The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum"[43]
Physicist Robert
L. Park has also criticized the theistic interpretation
of fine-tuning:
·
Abiogenesis –
The natural process by which life arises from non-living matter
· Fine-tuning –
adjustment of parameters to fit data in theoretical physics
·
Ultimate fate of the universe
7.
^ Heilbron, J.
L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005,
p. 8
9.
^ Jump up to:a b Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe,
Cambridge University Press, p70-71
15.
^ John D.
Barrow The
Value of the Cosmological Constant
18.
^ George
F. R. Ellis, "Does
the Multiverse Really Exist?" Scientific
American
19.
^ Ananthaswamy,
Anil. "Is
the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?". Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
20.
^ Ross, Greg (2015). "An
interview with Leonard Susskind". American Scientist.
21.
^ Weinberg, Steven (1999). "A
Designer Universe?". physlink.com.
22.
^ "Interview". Public Broadcasting System,
pbs.org.
27. ^ Stenger, Victor
J. "Flew's Flawed Science".
32.
^ Parallel
Worlds,2005, Michio Kaku,
pp. 220–221
44.
^ William
Lane Craig, "The
Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle". leaderu.com
48.
^ Polkinghorne,
John (1998) Science and Theology: An Introduction p. 75
49. ^ Meister,
C., Introducing Philosophy of Religion (Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, 2009), p. 107.
50.
^ Colyvan et
al. (2005). Problems
with the Argument from Fine Tuning. Synthese
145: 325-38.
51.
^ The
Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism, Michael Ikeda, Bill Jefferys