# Victor Stenger's Cosmological Fine Tuning Counterarguments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2014, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131 "2014-11-20T05:51:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/21 "2014-11-21T19:00:51Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > But, if we exist in a universe, then by definition that universe can support life. 😕 Imagine a universe where mixed-material objects only stay together if they have the spark of life. No matter how hard we try, we can’t make allows, mixtures, and so on. As soon as a living object dies, it immediately falls apart into it’s component elements. It would be difficult to support life in that universe, and yet here we are! What is it about life that allows it to stay together? Pretty amazing! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/22 "2014-11-21T21:54:23Z")
One cannot meaningfully speak of the speed of light, or Planck’s constant, changing. If you speak of the speed of light being 12 m/s, all you’re doing is re-defining the meter and/or the second. Well, we humans can certainly do that: We invented those units, after all. But merely changing the definitions of the units doesn’t do a thing to the existence or nonexistence of life. The only physical constants one can truly speak of as changing, or as having different values, are the dimensionless ones. Some of those, of course, are interdependent, so you can’t pin down exactly which constants are the “fundamental” ones, versus which ones are just algebraic combinations of the fundamentals. For instance, one could speak of the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass, and the ratio of the electron mass to the Planck mass, and the ratio of the proton mass to the Planck mass
 but that’s only two independent numbers, since once you have any two, you can determine the third. So far as we know, there are two dozen independent parameters. As said, which two dozen you pick is flexible, but one possible set follows: The masses of 14 different particles, relative to the Planck mass. The W/Z mixing angle 3 quark mixing angles 3 neutrino mixing angles Coupling constants for the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces There may be more that govern physics we don’t yet know about. And there may be less, if it turns out that some of those constants actually relate to each other in some way. It’s conceivable that there might not even be any: They might all turn out to be calcualable mathematical constants, in which case the Universe isn’t “tunable” at all. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/23 "2014-11-21T23:04:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > One cannot meaningfully speak of the speed of light, or Planck’s constant, changing. If you speak of the speed of light being 12 m/s, all you’re doing is re-defining the meter and/or the second. . . . I’m not entirely sure that’s right. One can imagine our universe, with no other changes, save that the speed of light is 1,000,000 times greater. What other changes would have to occur to accommodate this? I don’t suppose anyone can know for sure, but the notion is meaningful in the abstract. If the strong nuclear force were a little weaker than it is, large nuclei couldn’t form. If a little stronger, Uranium might be a stable atom, not a radioactive one. This isn’t a nonsensical avenue for speculation, just one that is somewhat unproductive. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/24 "2014-11-24T04:30:07Z")
I can just imagine another parallel universe built on different physical constants like where **its** sentient life (maybe silicon-based salamanders breathing HF gas) is arguing how life could not form if the physical constants were different than theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/25 "2014-11-24T05:15:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What side is Stenger on? Stenger is definitely anti-fine tuning. > [@septimus](#): > > Personally, I find the arguments for a “Goldilocks universe” to be very convincing. This is the first I’ve heard it was claimed by “christian apologists”; I’ve always thought it more of a “multiversian” thing. Let me see if I understand. You see it coming from people who propose there are dozens/hundreds/thousands of universes and we just happen to be in the “just right” one? Yes, that is a form of the argument, but Stenger is concerned with creationists who talk about fine tuning as proof of God. Multiverse is one option to allow “fine tuning” without God. Discrediting fine tuning is a different approach. > [@septimus](#): > > Note also that He[sup]4[/sup] has almost _exactly_ half the energy of Be[sup]8[/sup], essential to Hoyle’s hypothesis. The reaction 3 He –\> C proceeds, but at an extremely slow rate. If it were slower, elements like carbon wouldn’t form, if higher stars would be short-lived. Stenger’s approach to these types of claims is to look at just how finely tuned these characteristics are. How large of a range of values allows that Goldilocks zone? The larger the zone, the less fine tuned, the less convincing the argument. If the values are locked to 15 decimal places, then you have a much more convincing argument than if the values can range 15%. > [@](#): > > Why does Stenger think there are only three parameters? I have no idea why he only mentioned three parameters. For the Lamda Cold Dark Model, he discusses 6 parameters. > [@](#): > > What about the strengths of gravitation, strong, and weak forces? > > [snip] > > One can suppose that with different parameters, different useful equilibria would be achieved. But how many could there be? If you posit a particular set of parameters perfect for nitogen-based life, and another set perfect for phosphorus, you’re going to run out of elements quickly. In his summary section, he states: > [@](#): > > They assume the strengths of the various forces are constants that can independently change from universe to universe. In fact, they are dependent on one another and vary with energy, and their relative values and energy dependencies are close to being pinned down by theory, in ranges that make some kind of life possible. > [@](#): > > We may be in agreement. I should have spoke of “degrees of freedom” rather than “unknowns.” In any event the point is that to subsume the distance/time ratio, you get one velocity for free, but any other velocities are non-free parameters. Once you’ve specified three parameters (say c, h, mass-of-electron), remaining parameters are non-free. Yes, that makes sense. That fits with points Stenger makes, that many parameters are interrelated and that changes to one parameter can be offset by changes to another parameter to make the viable universe options larger. > [@Reyemile](#): > > What always struck me about this argument is how it presupposes that the creator is bound by the rules of creation. It would be much stronger evidence for a god or gods if we existed in a universe that _couldn’t_ support life–that right there would make an unambiguous case for a supernatural, miraculous being. I’m not even sure what that would mean. It would basically be saying “magic works”. > [@RitterSport](#): > > Imagine a universe where mixed-material objects only stay together if they have the spark of life. No matter how hard we try, we can’t make allows, mixtures, and so on. As soon as a living object dies, it immediately falls apart into it’s component elements. > > It would be difficult to support life in that universe, and yet here we are! What is it about life that allows it to stay together? Pretty amazing! Wouldn’t we analyze and study this “spark of life” to understand how it works? Apply scientific scrutiny. You’re proposing some inexplicable and completely undetectable “force” that has no mechanism and only can be observed via a rule of behavior (kinda like gravity to Newton). Either we can come up with some way to understand it, or magic works. > [@Chronos](#): > > One cannot meaningfully speak of the speed of light, or Planck’s constant, changing. If you speak of the speed of light being 12 m/s, all you’re doing is re-defining the meter and/or the second. This doesn’t make sense to me. The speed that light propogates is a certain speed, regardless of the units chosen and the value that corresponds to those units. Doesn’t inflation propose the speed of light changing rapidly during that period? What makes the value of c unchangeable in the sense it is a locked parameter whereas the strength of gravity is not locked? > [@](#): > > The only physical constants one can truly speak of as changing, or as having different values, are the dimensionless ones. Why? This is what I don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/26 "2014-11-24T06:00:57Z")
Do we have any reason to believe that “changing the fundamental constants of the universe” is even a coherent concept? It seems like this is an assumption at the base of the fine-tuning argument that is completely unsupported. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/27 "2014-11-24T06:02:21Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > . . . Doesn’t inflation propose the speed of light changing rapidly during that period? . . . As I understand it, no: it proposes that the cosmos itself expanded much faster than the speed of light, but that the speed of light itself was still the same old familiar comfortable constant, at least in the region of space that is causally connected to us. “Our” region of space. One possible outcome of this is that there may be regions within our universe, causally isolated from the region we inhabit, and the physical constants might vary slightly from one region to another. It’s a slight variation on the multiverse idea. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/28 "2014-11-24T06:34:08Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Do we have any reason to believe that “changing the fundamental constants of the universe” is even a coherent concept? It seems like this is an assumption at the base of the fine-tuning argument that is completely unsupported. We’re still exploring what it means for these parameters to have the values they have, and why they are what they are. So far, we can determine values. We can evaluate what different values might mean. Without an underlying theory and complete model on how they are all connected, we can’t know that they are constrained, so we think what the changes could mean. My quote from Stenger in the last response indicates the models are tightening such that the values may be constrained. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/29 "2014-11-24T18:56:09Z")
An argument against the “need” for fine-tuning is the phenomenon known as [self-organized criticality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality), where the critical parts of physical systems tend to occupy phase transitions. I wonder if claims like Davies’ that a mixture of both radiative and convective stars is improbable ignore that principle. But there are “magical” properties of some chemical or thermonuclear reactions that do depend on specific tuning. I still think the reaction 3 He –\> Be[sup]8[/sup] + He –\> C[sup]12[/sup] is a particularly good example. > [@Irishman](#): > > Stenger’s approach to these types of claims is to look at just how finely tuned these characteristics are. How large of a range of values allows that Goldilocks zone? The larger the zone, the less fine tuned, the less convincing the argument. If the values are locked to 15 decimal places, then you have a much more convincing argument than if the values can range 15%. This was responding to the energy of a C[sup]12[/sup] state in the above reaction. But it is the mass-energy of Be[sup]8[/sup] which is more interesting. On a scale where C[sup]12[/sup] is 12.0000, twice the mass of He[sup]4[/sup] is 8.0052, while the mass of Be[sup]8[/sup] is 8.0053; the former is 99.999% of the latter – very precise fine-tuning – and, according to Hoyle, _this is the reason carbon can be produced in the Sun_. (But if this peculiar resonance could be bypassed, carbon would be produced much faster and stars would be short-lived.) I hope physicists comment on whether this closeness (2 He[sup]4[/sup] \<–\> Be[sup]8[/sup]) follows from principles, or is just a coincidence? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/30 "2014-11-24T19:47:59Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > This doesn’t make sense to me. The speed that light propogates is a certain speed, regardless of the units chosen and the value that corresponds to those units. Doesn’t inflation propose the speed of light changing rapidly during that period? What makes the value of c unchangeable in the sense it is a locked parameter whereas the strength of gravity is not locked? Perhaps you should think of it as analogous to the proposition that the length of a second changes—what could that mean? Nothing, because time always passes at a rate of one second per second; if the second were twice as long, it would still pass at that same rate, and nothing would change. The same thing goes for the (unfortunately-named) speed of light, _c_ (I’ll from now on adopt the convention that I use _c_ when speaking about the fundamental speed limit, and _c[sub]L[/sub]_ when talking about the spead at which light propagates, which may well differ from _c_). It’s essentially a conversion factor between units of length and units of time: thus, when you talk about _c_ changing, you’re making merely a statment about the system of units you have elected to use. If you say that _c_ is 12 m/s, then that tells you merely what a meter is—the distance light covers in vacuum in 1/12 the time it takes the cesium 133 atom to transition between the hyperfine levels of its ground state 9192631770 times (or whatever else your definition of ‘second’ is). In these units, the moon would be something like 15 m away. That’s why we can get away with setting the speed of light to one—it’s just choosing a convenient system of units. If you say that the speed of light is some other value, what you’re really saying is ‘I want to use this other system of units’, which you’re free to do, but which doesn’t change anything about the physics. Now, a priori, there’s a difference between _c_ and _c[sub]L[/sub]_—counterfactually, it’s certainly possible for light to propagate at some other speed than _c_. Indeed, there are situations where it propagates both slower (in any material optically denser than the vacuum) and faster (Casimir effect) than that. In fact, if light were massive, it could propagate at any speed smaller than _c_; if it were tachyonic, it could propagate at any faster speed. But this does not impinge on the fact that _c[sub]L[/sub]_ is always equal to one, up to redefinitions of units, anymore than the possibility that 9192631770 oscillations between the hyperfine levels of the Cs-133 groundstate could take less or more time than a second impinges on the fact that time always flows at one second per second. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/31 "2014-11-25T01:13:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I’m not even sure what that would mean. It would basically be saying “magic works”. Let me phrase this a different way. The Fine Tuning argument presupposes humans are special–that is, the fact that _the universe supports our existence_ is a significant and meaningful observation. However, I would argue that the fine-tuning argument is counterproductive to the theistic (read: Christian) argument. The fact that we need an universe fine-tuned for us suggest we are _not_ special. The clumps of atoms that make up our minds and bodies follow the _same rules_ as every other clump of atoms in the universe. Compare that to the actual creation myth. In that universe, we are dust with God’s breath animating us. The “rules” of that universe don’t allow for life–put dust together all you want, you won’t get Adam II. Only a miracle by God allowed us to come into being. And I’ve seen it argued (though I don’t know if the Bible supports this) that each conception is another miracle from God. So, given that an infinitely powerful God could miraculously create and sustain us on any universe, why should a universe that supports us without miraculous intervention constitute any proof of God? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/32 "2014-11-25T01:44:43Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > . . . So, given that an infinitely powerful God could miraculously create and sustain us on any universe, why should a universe that supports us without miraculous intervention constitute any proof of God? One could suggest that God is parsimonious. This is why animals and humans have so much in common: bone structures, muscles, internal organs, etc. The creationist can say, “No, we didn’t come from animals; God just used parts of the same blueprints when creating us from nothing.” God could have created the universe to be habitable to life, as a simplifying process. Now, the problem with this reasoning is that it is ad hoc. It serves only to defend the conclusion desired. It’s fallacious. But that doesn’t quite mean that it isn’t true
 (In mathematics, there are any number of invalid, true propositions!) ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/33 "2014-11-25T06:08:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > One could suggest that God is parsimonious
 
immediately raising the question of the reason for the sextillion stars not essential to our existence 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/34 "2014-11-25T12:45:03Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I hope physicists comment on whether this closeness (2 He[sup]4[/sup] \<–\> Be[sup]8[/sup]) follows from principles, or is just a coincidence? It’s beyond my ability to address. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Perhaps you should think of it as analogous to the proposition that the length of a second changes—what could that mean? Nothing, because time always passes at a rate of one second per second; if the second were twice as long, it would still pass at that same rate, and nothing would change. Ah, but you see you are missing the point. I could define the second to be longer, but I have not changed the property of the universe by doing so. Correct. But why does time flow at the rate it does? Regardless of how I define a second, that rate of time passage is the inherent property of the universe that I am talking about being able to vary as a parameter. Why not? It’s really hard to talk about the parameter of timerate without mentioning the units we use. The same thing goes for the (unfortunately-named) speed of light, _c_ 
 It’s essentially a conversion factor between units of length and units of time: thus, when you talk about _c_ changing, you’re making merely a statment about the system of units you have elected to use. If you say that _c_ is 12 m/s, then that tells you merely what a meter is—the distance light covers in vacuum in 1/12 the time it takes the cesium 133 atom to transition between the hyperfine levels of its ground state 9192631770 times (or whatever else your definition of ‘second’ is). In these units, the moon would be something like 15 m away. [/quote] I see what you are saying, but you are missing my point. I am not picking a number and saying “how to I apply that value to what the universe is doing?”. I am saying “make the universe work differently”. When I said “12 m/s”, I was trying to say something about the parameter _c_. Why is that the cosmic speed limit? Why is that the value that plugs into E=mc[sup]2[/sup]? Why is that the value that fits the Lorentz transformations? But more importantly, what if that relationship was different? Instead of saying I’m changing the definition of the meter and the second, keep those the same and tell me about the parameter of how the universe behaves. Are you trying to tell me that that principle is, instead, embedded in other parameters like the Hubble parameter? > [@Reyemile](#): > > Let me phrase this a different way. > > The Fine Tuning argument presupposes humans are special–that is, the fact that _the universe supports our existence_ is a significant and meaningful observation. > > [snip] > > So, given that an infinitely powerful God could miraculously create and sustain us on any universe, why should a universe that supports us without miraculous intervention constitute any proof of God? Thank you for clarifying. Their proposition seems to be “There are any number of possible variations to make types of universes, but only one in which we could be here. Therefore, God did it.” Your approach seems to be “this universe allows us to exist as naturally functioning components without anything special or new added just for us. Therefore, we got lucky that we have our universe, but God didn’t do anything to make us special.” I suppose I see your point. The counterargument would be, I think, the “soul”. Our spirit, the divine spark that sets humans above animals and lets us go to heaven and all that jazz. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/35 "2014-11-25T16:21:21Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I suppose I see your point. The counterargument would be, I think, the “soul”. Our spirit, the divine spark that sets humans above animals and lets us go to heaven and all that jazz. In which case my argument has accomplished its goal:forcing the theist to abandon the pretense of science and to admit their beliefs are based on unfalsifiable faith claims. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/36 "2014-11-25T20:15:53Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Ah, but you see you are missing the point. I could define the second to be longer, but I have not changed the property of the universe by doing so. Correct. > > But why does time flow at the rate it does? To the extent that it’s meaningful to talk that way, there is only one ‘rate’ at which time can possibly flow. Consider your measuring the duration something takes, say, the time it takes for the moon to complete a full revolution. For one revolution, your clock makes _n_ ticks. Now speed up the flow of time, say, double it. What changes? Well, nothing: for one revolution, your clock still ticks _n_ times. The revolution of the moon is now ‘twice as fast’; but likewise, your clock ticks _n_ times twice as fast. > [@](#): > > Regardless of how I define a second, that rate of time passage is the inherent property of the universe that I am talking about being able to vary as a parameter. If the above doesn’t make things clearer, consider that a ‘rate’ is the change of something with time; thus, speaking of the rate of time passing simply is incoherent. > [@](#): > > I see what you are saying, but you are missing my point. I am not picking a number and saying “how to I apply that value to what the universe is doing?”. I am saying “make the universe work differently”. When I said “12 m/s”, I was trying to say something about the parameter _c_. Why is that the cosmic speed limit? Why is that the value that plugs into E=mc[sup]2[/sup]? Why is that the value that fits the Lorentz transformations? But more importantly, what if that relationship was different? Whenever you’re saying that there could be some other value to plug into the energy-mass equivalence, or the Lorentz transformation, or something else, all you’re saying is that there could be another system of units you’re using, which is of course true. Consider two ‘universes’, one with fundamental speed _c_[sub]1[/sub], the other with fundamental speed _c_[sub]2[/sub]. In one, the energy-mass equivalence would be E = m_c_[sub]1[/sub][sup]2[/sup], in the other, E = m_c_[sub]2[/sub][sup]2[/sup]. You allege that there would be a fundamental difference between both. But consider that a physicist in either universe could choose different units, in which _c_[sub]1[/sub] = 1, and respectively _c_[sub]2[/sub] = 1. This does not change anything about the physics; all they’ve done is use another system of standard clocks and measuring sticks. But then, in both universes, the energy-mass equivalence would be E = m, making clear that their physics is actually the same. What really makes a difference physically are the dimensionless ratios of dimensionful quantities. Take, for instance, the fine-structure constant α: its value is approximately 1/137, independently of the units you use. If you change its value, then you get genuinely different physics—stronger or weaker electromagnetic forces, for instance. Another way to think about this is to note that the values dimensionful quantities take is merely an accident of how we have chosen to define our measuring system—they’re purely anthropocentric. We can always choose units such that _c_ = 1, and other dimensionful constants likewise; their values are just accidents of how we’ve chosen to quantify things, not properties of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/37 "2014-11-25T20:37:24Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Wouldn’t we analyze and study this “spark of life” to understand how it works? Apply scientific scrutiny. You’re proposing some inexplicable and completely undetectable “force” that has no mechanism and only can be observed via a rule of behavior (kinda like gravity to Newton). Either we can come up with some way to understand it, or magic works. I was just trying to come up with a universe that doesn’t support life, and yet here we are. **Reyemile** did a better job of working that out than I did. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/38 "2014-11-25T22:39:17Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Ah, but you see you are missing the point. I could define the second to be longer, but I have not changed the property of the universe by doing so. Correct. > > But why does time flow at the rate it does? Regardless of how I define a second, that rate of time passage is the inherent property of the universe that I am talking about being able to vary as a parameter. Why not? It’s really hard to talk about the parameter of timerate without mentioning the units we use. > > The same thing goes for the (unfortunately-named) speed of light, _c_ 
 It’s essentially a conversion factor between units of length and units of time: thus, when you talk about _c_ changing, you’re making merely a statment about the system of units you have elected to use. . . . Your first point is correct: we cannot meaningfully talk about different rates of time. But we can meaningfully talk about different speeds. 186,282 miles per second is different than 500,000 miles per second. We live in a universe where the former is observed, but there is no philosophical reason we might not live in a universe where the latter is observed. It would be pointless to argue, “If I measure my weight in kilograms instead of pounds, I weigh less, since 115 is less than 250.” But it is perfectly valid to wonder what might happen if the charge on the electron were twice what it is, since it is measureable as a ratio of forces. It isn’t a “naked” unit, but can be observed by the force of repulsion (dynes) between two charged objects. If the unit charge were twice what it is, that physical repulsion would be twice what it is, and that would be a real difference in the cosmos. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/39 "2014-11-26T09:14:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But it is perfectly valid to wonder what might happen if the charge on the electron were twice what it is, Not quite. What must change in order to make an observable difference is the dimensionless ratio between electron and Planck charge, which ratio happens to be the square root of the fine structure constant. In Planck units, the Planck charge is one, and thus, you could there talk about changing the electron charge; however, in atomic units, the electron charge is one, and you’d have to talk about changing the Planck charge instead. The point is that talking about changing the ratio of electron to Planck charge has operational meaning across all possible systems of units, while changing the electron charge doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131/40 "2014-11-26T14:58:41Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I believe the Fine Tuning Argument is that if any of those constants were changed a little, then it would result in a world where life was not possible _at all_, because things like star formation and complex chemistry would not be possible. I have read some from Stenger that changing one constant at a time may make life impossible, but there are many combinations where you change more than one at a time and it would allow interesting properties of matter. My guess is that simply something other than stars, or just very different stars, would form. Also very different chemistry. The problem is they are working backwards from the way things are now, so of course if anything is different, what we see now will be impossible. What they fail to imagine is what might arise under the different conditions. Yes, complex chemistry, as we know it, would be impossible. But we don’t know what would result in its stead, and they are, IMHO, fallaciously assuming it’s nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victor-stengers-cosmological-fine-tuning-counterarguments/705131.md?page=3)