Enis DOKO
(İbn Haldun Üniversitesi, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2019Cilt: 17Sayı: 1ISSN: 2602-2710 / 2602-2710Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 14İngilizce

19 0
DOES FINE-TUNING NEED AN EXPLANATION?
Contemporary physics has shown that the universe is fine-tuned for life i.e. of all the possible waysphysical laws, initial conditions and constants of physics could have been configured, only an extremelysmall range is capable of supporting life. Some theists have argued that fine-tuning can be used as apremise in a design argument for the existence of God, while some other scientists and philosophershave argued that fine-tuning provides an evidence for a multiverse, a hypothesis which claim that thereis more than one universe. Both approaches assume that fine-tuning require some kind of explanation.Despite the initial appeal some philosophers and scientists have denied the need of explanation for thefine-tuning. They either deny that the universe is fine-tuned for existence or else think that we shouldnot be surprised that universe is fine-tuned, and therefore should not search for explanation. In thispaper we analyse some of these claims and try to show that neither of them succeeds in demonstratingthat fine-tuning does not need an explanation.
DergiDiğerErişime Açık
  • Barnes, L. “Fine-tuning of the universe for life”. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29/4, (2013): 529-564.
  • Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. The Antropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
  • Carr, B. and Rees, M. “The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical World”. Nature, 278, (1979): 605-612.
  • Carter, B. “Confrontations of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data”. IAU Symposium, Vol. 63. ed. M. S. Longair, 291-298. D. Reidel: Dordrecht, 1974.
  • Collins, R. “Evidence for fine tuning”, God and Design: The teleological argument and modern science. ed. N. Manson, Abingdon: Routledge, 2003.
  • Collins, R. “The Teleological Argument: An Explanation of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland, Chester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
  • Davies, P. The accidental universe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  • Davies, P. God and The New Physics. London: Penguin Books, 1984.
  • Davies, P. “The anthroic principle”. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 10, (1989): 1 – 38.
  • Davies, P. The Goldilocks Enigma. Houghton: Mifflin Harcourt, 2007.
  • Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books, 2008.
  • Dorling, J. “Dimensionality of time”. American Journal of Physics, 38, (1970): 539.
  • Ehrenfest, P. “Can atoms or planets exist in higher dimensions?”. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy, 20, (1917): 200-203.
  • Ellis, G. “Opposing the multiverse”. Astronomy & Geophysics, 49/2, (2008): 2.34.
  • Hacking, I. “The inverse gambler’s fallacy: the argument from design. The anthropic principle applied to Wheeler universes”. Mind, 96, (1987): 331-340.
  • Hawking S., and Mlodinow, L. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2010.
  • Hogan, J. “Why the universe is just so”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 72/4, (2000): 1149-1161.
  • Koperski, J. Physics of Theism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.
  • Laudan, L. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”. Philosophy of Science, 48/1, (1981): 19-49.
  • Leslie J., “How to draw conclusions from a fine-tuned cosmos”, Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest For Understanding, ed. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger and G. V. Coyne, 297-312, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Press, 1988.
  • Leslie, J. Universes. London: Routledge, 1989.
  • McGrew, T., McGrew, L., and Vestrup, E. “Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: a skeptical view”. Mind 110, (2001): 1027-1038.
  • Parfit, D. (1998). Why anything? Why this?. London Review of Books, Jan 22, 24-27.
  • Penrose, R. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
  • Penrose, R. The Road To Reality. Jonathan Cope: London, 2004.
  • Penrose, R. (2006). “Before the big bang: An outrageous new perspective and its implications for particle physics.” Proceedings of EPAC 2006, (2006):2759-2767.
  • Plantinga, A. Where the conflict really lies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  • Rees, M. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999.
  • Smart, J. J. C. “Laws of nature and cosmic coincidence”. The Philosophical Quarterly 35/140, (1985): 272-280.
  • Smart, J. J. C. Our Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
  • Stenger, V. “Is the universe fine-tuned for us.” Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. ed. M. Young and T. Edis, 172-184, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004.
  • Stenger V. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Amherst N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2011.
  • Tegmark, M. “On the Dimensionality of Spacetime”. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14, (1997): L69-L75.
  • Tegmark, M. and Rees, M. “Why Is the Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuation Level 10−5?”. The Astrophysical Journal, 499, (1998): 526.
  • Tegmark, M. “Parallel Universes”. Scientific American, 288, (2005): 40-51.
  • Tegmark M., Aguirre A., Rees M., Wilczek F. “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”. Physical Review D, 73, (2006): 023505.
  • Weinberg, S. The first three minutes: a modern view of the origin of the universe. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
  • Weinberg, S. “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant”. Physical Review Letter, 59, (1987): 2607.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.