]]>

We obviously live in a Universe thats supports human life. There is the idea that our Universe is even finely tuned in this way, because only a small variation in the physical fundamentals would make life impossible. For example, if the the nuclear force were only 2% stronger this would drastically alter the physics of stars, probably making life as we know it impossible.(1)

Larry Abbott wrote: "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."

The question is, how did it get this way?

The Big Bang cosmological model is currently the one most supported by scientific evidence and observation. This model states that the Universe has expanded from a very hot and dense initial condition in the past. Extrapolation backwards in time leads to a singularity of infinite density and heat where our current laws of physics did not exist yet, in particular the fundamental forces.(2)

The eminent physicist John A. Wheeler summed up what he regarded as his most important contribution to physics:

We therefore can ask the question, what determined the development of the laws of the Universe from the Singularity to our current state so that it would support human life? If we consider that the laws of the Universe even need to be finely tuned to be able to do this, then it was certainly not a foregone conclusion that our Universe would have developed this way.

There is no reason to believe and no theory that states, that the Universe had to develop in the way it did by necessity from the Singularity. A singularity of infinite density and heat with otherwise indefinite properties does not induce our laws of physics by force of logic. Our laws did not develop “from nothing” either. The assertion that “nothing comes from nothing” (ex nihilo nihil fit) is a widely accepted philosophical expression.

There remain only two possibilites how the Universe could have developed this way:

1.) an intelligent choice or design by the Universe itself or some other unknown source

2.) coincidence

If we assume 1.) then we immediately have something like an intelligent creator. Note that this does not settle the religious questions. The creative, intelligent source could even be the Universe itself.

The alternative is that the development of this Universe was a chance occurrence. But what is this? Chance is also known as probability and there are two main interpretations of probability, ‘physical’ and ‘evidential’.

Physical probabilities are associated with frequencies of events within a given system. The important thing here is that the probability is always relative to and requires for its calculation a set of all possible outcomes. For example, if we wish to find out what the probability for a certain die roll is, we need to determine the set of all possible die rolls are. We can either do this theoretically by examining the die or empirically by rolling the die many times.

Without such a context, this type of probability is not meaningful. Coming back to this proof again, were therefore need to define or find out what the other possible outcomes of the development of the Singularity would be. This set of alternative outcomes is either finite or infinite.

If we assume the entire set of alternative outcomes of the Universe is finite, we must ask the question, why only this limited set? The Singularity has no property per se, that would limit the set of possible universes to a finite set. Each physical constant could have assumed any value from the set of real numbers which is infinite. Even if the values of physical constants were somehow predetermined within an interval the set of possible numbers within such an interval is still infinite.

If we assume that only a limited number of universes developed from the Singularity, we would get a probability of 0% given that the set of possible universes is infinite. So either this interpretation of probability does not apply in this context or we must assume that there are an infinite number of universes actually existing. Indeed, the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics supports this idea.(4)

There is also evidential interpretation of probability, which is the 'subjective degree of belief in a proposition'. If this interpretation is used entirely subjectively without objectively assertable reasons, then we have no basis for discussion in the context of this proof. This is basically saying the Universe developed the way it did because of pure belief. To have a fruitful scientific or philosophical discussion we must have some objective reasons to examine for such a belief. Since the model of a singularity of infinite density and heat alone delivers practically no objectively examinable reasons, we must assume that any evidential probability inferred thereby is entirely subjective and therefore of no value for discussion. Any logically consistent universe imaginable with the Singularity as its origin can equally be argued to exist through the method of evidential probability.

I even would assert that, if any type of chance is the origin of this Universe, then we need to allow all logically-consistent universes imaginable with such a singularity as its origin to actually exist.

To prove this I will use proof by contradiction. Let’s say there is a Universe X which is a logically consistent universe with the Singularity as its origin, which does not exist by random occurence. This point in time where universe X does not exist shall be T(0). We then go back to the point in time T(-1) of the Singularity, where there still was the possibility – by chance – that universe X would develop. We must assume then that between T(-1) and T(0) some random mechanism determined that universe X would not develop. This mechanism itself cannot be anything other than a physical law, because everything that occurs randomly in the Universe is governed by physical laws. So then by definition of the Singularity there was also a point in time T(-2) where this law did not exist yet. We get the necessity of an infinite series of laws regressing towards the Singularity, but no origin of this series. Since the Singularity at its oldest point in time has no laws at all, then there must be by necessity a missing link in random causality between the original beginning of the Singularity and this series. There are only two ways the Singularity could have developed from its origin to the beginning of the series, that is either through intelligent choice, or by the fact that all logical possibilities did actually develop. Since we are excluding intelligent choice in this part of the proof, we must assume that all logical possibilities did develop. But if that happened then there must have also developed a series of mechanisms with probability 1, though which universe X came into existance. This contradicts the above assertion.

If all logically possible universes exist though, then there must also exist a universe that contains an intelligent "superbeing". Once could imagine all the atoms of this universe arrayed together as a giant supercomputer. Furthermore, because it is logically possible to formulate this, this being could have the ability to transcend space and time to such a degree that it can at least effectuate our universe or even create new universes.

Thus we end up in each case with an intelligent "superbeing" as postulated. This does not verify or falsify any religion though. I think many religions could be suitable interpretations of the existance of this being, possibly they even all are.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

(3) Quoted by Paul Davies — Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity , p. 6, Cambridge University Press, 2004

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation]]>