Scientific Materialism Makes the Wrong Prediction About Our Universe's Habitability

In my previous post I discussed cosmic habitability categories, which involve four possible types of universes: uninhabitable universes (in which life can't exist), barely habitable universes (in which it is very hard but just barely possible for intelligent life to exist), moderately habitable universes (offering more favorable conditions), and abundantly habitable universes (in which life might be able to evolve all over the universe, with many planets having life all over them, and intelligent life having great prospects for being able to survive for eons). It seems that our universe is the fourth type of universe, as it does not have any serious shortfall in regard to habitability.

Now let us consider two interesting questions: (1) which of these types of universes are the most likely and the second-most-likely to exist? (2) what type of prediction about the habitability of the universe is implied by scientific materialism?

In my previous post I described a group of habitability necessities that are required for any universe to be habitable, and I also listed a series of factors I called habitability boosters, each of which would increase the habitability of a universe (without being an absolutely necessary precondition for the habitability of a universe). I then used these factors to define the different habitability categories:

Uninhabitable universe: A universe in which intelligent life cannot evolve anywhere, because it is missing one or more of the habitability necessities.

Barely habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, but none or only one or two of the habitability boosters.

Moderately habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, and roughly half of the habitability boosters.

Abundantly habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, and all or almost all of the habitability boosters.

So to delve into the relative likelihood of these types of universes, we must consider first : what is the chance of the habitability necessities occurring? Then we can consider what is the chance of the habitability boosters occurring.

Why a Random Universe is Overwhelmingly Likely To Be Uninhabitable

The first habitability necessity I mentioned was stable atoms heavier than hydrogen. We take heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen for granted, but we shouldn't. We should not expect them to exist in more than a very tiny fraction of all random universes. You wouldn't have atoms other than hydrogen unless you have the strange convenience we call the strong nuclear force, which binds together nuclei together, overcoming the electromagnetic repulsion between protons. First such a force must exist. Second, it must have the right strength level (and it is actually the strongest known force). You must also have electromagnetism causing a force of attraction between protons and electrons, which keeps electrons in an atom. Then you need quantum mechanical laws that prevent such attraction from causing electrons to fall into the nucleus. Given all of the ways you can wrong, it seems the chance of atoms existing in a universe of random constants and forces is very low.

The second habitability necessity I mentioned was planets with a reasonable level of gravity. To meet this necessity a universe needs a universal force of gravitation that is attractive. The very existence of such a force would seem to be no more than a one-in-three likelihood, since we can imagine two other equally likely possibilities (a universe with no such force at all, and a universe with a force of repulsion between all particles). But the likelihood of habitable planets in a random universe is actually much, much smaller than that. For one thing, the strength level of gravitation (signified in our universe by the gravitational constant) must be within a quite narrow range of values. If gravitation is too weak, planets won't hold together. If gravitation is too large, then the gravity on all planets will so great that no animals will be able to move around on a planet (and there are also reasons why an expanding universe would have collapsed into black holes if gravitation had been much higher). There is also fine-tuning required in regard to the proton charge and the electron charge. For example, in our universe if the proton charge and the electron charge were not exactly the same, gravitation would not be enough to hold planets together (since the electromagnetic force is roughly a trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the gravitational force, even a relatively tiny difference in the proton charge and the electron charge would cause repulsive effects exceeding the attractive effects of gravitation in large bodies such as planets, preventing their existence, as mentioned by Greenstein here).

In short, while we take planets for granted (having lived on one all our lives), it seems that we should expect only a tiny fraction of random universes to have planets suitable for the existence of mobile living creatures

The likelihood of a random universe being habitable seems even smaller when we consider the third habitability necessity I mentioned, the necessity of having a relatively empty vacuum. The issue (discussed here) is that according to quantum mechanics, quantum fluctuations should cause the vacuum to be teeming with energy. This is the “vacuum catastrophe” problem or cosmological constant problem that is perhaps the biggest unsolved problem in physics. According to the predictions of quantum field theory, we should live in a vacuum that is at least 10⁶⁰ times denser than the observed vacuum – so dense that a square meter of the vacuum should be denser than a square meter of steel. Pretty much the only idea physicists have as to why our vacuum is so relatively empty is that there was some fantastically improbable and coincidental “cancellation of contributions” leaving us with a nearly empty vacuum – something rather like the annual savings of Chinese citizens coincidentally matching the annual credit card charges of US citizens, with an exact match to the penny. The chance of such a thing in a random universes is very, very low.

The likelihood of a random universe being habitable seems even smaller when we consider the fourth habitability necessity I mentioned, the necessity of having both carbon and oxygen in the universe. Scientists have discussed how if the strong nuclear force had been slightly weaker or slightly stronger, we would have been left with a universe that would have had either lots of carbon but no oxygen, or lots of oxygen but no carbon. Apparently getting both required a lot of luck that would be very unlikely in most random universes.

Based on these considerations (which do not at all discuss all of the habitability necessities of a habitable universe), we can conclude that uninhabitable universes are vastly more likely than habitable universes. Such a conclusion has been made by quite a few previous scientists. A recent article by physicist Luke Barnes has a relevant graph showing habitable universes as just a small portion of a parameter space that is much bigger (and there are lots of bulls-eyes that nature must hit for a universe to be habitable, not just the one illustrated here).

Why a Barely Habitable Universe Should Be Vastly More Likely Than a Moderately Habitable Universe Or an Abundantly Habitable Universe

The conclusion above has been made by many writers, but now let's look at a question rarely considered, but quite important: in the class of all habitable universes, what fraction should be we expect to be just barely habitable? In other words, should we expect that barely habitable universes are vastly more common than moderately habitable universes and abundantly habitable universes?

I will now argue that we should expect exactly that, mainly because the habitability boosters that I identified are unlikely to occur in random universes. Let's look at the first habitability booster I identified, the existence of radiant stars.

The likelihood of you getting radiant stars in a random universe is discussed in section 4.7 of the scientific paper here. The paper quotes a scientific paper by Adams mentioning a 1 in 4 chance of stars being possible if you allow the fine-structure constant and the gravitational constant to have values differing from their current values by ten times. But this is an example of “putting the camera near the needle hole in order to make the needle hole look big.” There's no reason why the the fine-structure constant and the gravitational constant could not have values a million times smaller or larger. When we properly consider that, we are then left with a probability of less than 1 in a million that a random universe would have radiant stars. See here for more on this issue. On page 40 of this paper, physicist Luke Barnes says, “We conclude that the existence of stable stars is indeed a fine-tuned property of our universe” – in other words, something that would be very unlikely to occur in a random universe.

Another habitability booster I mentioned is the existence of sun-like stars. A universe that has such stars will tend to be a lot more habitable than one merely having red stars (planets around red stars are predicted to be tidal-locked planets on which there is only a ring of habitability between the side facing the star and the opposite side). It turns out that the fine-tuning for sun-like stars is far greater than the fine-tuning needing for red stars. Below is a quote from page 73 of The Accidental Universe by physicist Paul Davies:

If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change the other way, and they would all be blue giants.

It seems, therefore, that in random universes we are extremely unlikely to see sun-like stars, and that the requirements for such stars are much more special (much greater “long shots”) than the requirements for stars in general, just as the requirements for getting into Harvard are much harder-to-meet than the requirements for getting into “some type of college.”

Another habitability booster I mentioned is the existence of large amounts of both carbon and oxygen. Scientists have identified this as something that would not occur unless fundamental constants are fine-tuned. According to page 41 of this paper, a 1 part in 100,000 change in one fundamental constant would change things so that the main stellar process producing carbon and oxygen would produce either carbon or oxygen, but not both. That paper concludes, “The ability of stars in our universe to produce both carbon and oxygen seems to be a rare talent.” So we can conclude that this habitability booster (an abundance of both carbon and oxygen) is highly improbable in a random universe.

Another habitability booster I mentioned is low radioactivity. For simplicity let's just assume there is maybe 1 chance in 2 of such a condition. It would seem to be many times harder for a universe to have the last habitability booster I mentioned, that of low static electricity (so there are not all kinds of lethal static electricity amounts hanging around all over the place, ready to kill anyone who touches them). Low static electricity seems to require two different coincidences: the coincidence that the number of protons in a universe roughly equals the number of electrons (as it seems to do in our universe), and the coincidence that the proton charge equals the electron charge (as it does in our universe, to twenty decimal places). If you change those conditions just a little, you will be left with a universe in which there is so much free-floating static electricity (excess charges floating about) that life should be very rare, very short-lived or both (imagine a planet teeming with billions of “static electricity landmines” and you'll get the idea).

So speaking very generally, not only are the habitability necessities rare strokes of luck that should be very unlikely to occur in a random universe, but also the habitability boosters are almost all rare strokes of luck that should be very unlikely to occur in a random universe. Consequently, barely habitable universes should be vastly more likely than moderately habitable universes or abundantly habitable universes. Barely habitable universes should be much more likely because they require much fewer “improbable strokes of luck” than moderately habitable and abundantly habitable universes.

The visual below illustrates this idea. This is a very schematic visual, and its proportions are not supposed to represent the actual ratio between different habitability categories. The visual refers merely to probabilities, not actualities.  In the first bar we see something that represents very roughly a ratio between uninhabitable universes and habitable universes (although the actual fraction of habitable universes should be much smaller). The second bar is a closeup of the right edge of the first bar. When we zoom in and look at the habitable universes, we find that almost all of them are barely habitable universes, with a few (on the right side) being moderately habitable. The third bar is a closeup of the right edge of the second bar. When we zoom in and look at the universes that are better than barely habitable, we find that almost all of them are moderately habitable and only a tiny fraction are abundantly habitable. Although this visual is highly schematic, I think it gives a rough idea of the relative probabilities of a random universe being uninhabitable, barely habitable, moderately habitable or abundantly habitable.

What Prediction Does Scientific Materialism Make About Our Universe's Habitability?

Now let us consider: what type of prediction does scientific materialism make about the habitability of our universe? The answer is: it makes a prediction that could not be more wrong.

The actual prediction that scientific materialism makes about the habitability of universe is that our universe should be about the most uninhabitable universe imaginable. This is because of the long-standing problem in physics known as the cosmological constant problem or the vacuum catastrophe problem. Because of weird quantum mechanical considerations, physics predicts the vacuum of space should be seething with a very dense sea of virtual particles, particles that should cause each cubic meter of space to have more mass-energy than solid steel. Under such conditions, no type of life could exist for even an instant – it would be easier for life to exist in the middle of the sun.

So what we get from scientific materialism is the prediction that the universe should be as uninhabitable as anything we can imagine. But suppose we grant a special favor, and simply ignore the predictions of quantum mechanics. Suppose we pay no attention to the whole cosmological constant problem and vacuum catastrophe issue that physicists have been puzzled by for forty years. What type of universe does scientific materialism then predict? It then still predicts that our universe should be an uninhabitable universe. This is simply because an uninhabitable universe should be trillions of times more likely than any type of habitable universe. That's because of all the extremely improbable long shots and coincidences for a universe to meet the habitability necessities I have mentioned (and others I haven't mentioned).

But what if we grant a second special favor, and assume that observers must exist in a universe, perhaps by using some kind of dubious “selection effect” reasoning or “anthropic principle” reasoning. There is no sound basis for granting such a favor, but suppose we grant it anyway. What then does scientific materialism predict? It then predicts that our universe should only be a barely habitable universe. Why? Because, as we have seen, barely habitable universes should be vastly more likely than abundantly habitable universes like the one we live in. The list of long shots and coincidences that must be met in order to have a barely habitable universe is much shorter than the list of long shots and coincidences that must be met for moderately habitable universes or abundantly habitable universes.

So even if we grant two special favors, scientific materialism still makes the wrong prediction about what type of universe our universe should be. But what if we throw in a multiverse – the assumption that there are many universes? Does that help? No, it doesn't help at all. The habitability predictions of scientific materialism regarding our universe are not changed at all if we assume that there are many universes. It is a basic fact of probability math (ignored by multiverse enthusiasts) that you do not increase the chance of success on any one random trial by increasing the number of random trials.

The predictive failure of scientific materialism in this regard is very spectacular. It's a predictive failure far worse than has ever been made by any errant gypsy fortune teller or any misguided apocalyptic preacher. A failure this spectacular is a sure sign of underlying false assumptions. What we need is a worldview that predicts that our universe should be a type of universe like the type that it is, an abundantly habitable universe. 

Cosmic Habitability Categories: Four Types of Universes

When we hear scientists talk about different types of universes, they are usually talking about the spatial geometry of the universe, and distinguish between a flat universe, an open universe and a closed universe. But there is another very interesting way to classify universes. We can classify universes based not on their geometry but on their habitability – how easy it is for life to develop in a universe. We can distinguish between universes that are abundantly habitable, moderately habitable, barely habitable and uninhabitable.

Before presenting such a classification, let's look at two types of things that can contribute to a universe's habitability. The first type of thing is what can be called habitability necessities – things that a universe must have in order for any life to exist in it. The second type of thing is what can be called habitability boosters. By “habitability boosters” I mean things that are not absolutely necessary for any type of life to exist in a universe, but things which will tend to make life more common and prevalent and long-lasting if they exist in a universe.

The Main Habitability Necessities

Let's look at some habitability necessities – things that absolutely must be present for any advanced life to exist in a universe.

One habitability necessity is stable atoms heavier than hydrogen, atoms such as carbon and oxygen. We take stable atoms for granted, but quite a few things have to go right in order for them to be possible. In order for you to have elements other than hydrogen, you need to have a strong nuclear force that binds protons together in the nucleus. Such a force must be very strong to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion between protons (all particles with the same charge repel each other). Another requirement of stable atoms other than hydrogen is an electromagnetic force, which keeps electrons orbiting around the nucleus of the atom. If you don't have such a force, or if electrons and protons have the same type of charge (both positive or both negative), or if the electron charge differs greatly from the proton charge, you cannot have atoms such as oxygen atoms and carbon atoms. Another requirement for stable atoms and stable molecules are certain quantum mechanical laws such as the Pauli exclusion principle. As mentioned here, if there were no Pauli exclusion principle there would be no chemistry.

Another habitability necessity is the existence of large bodies such as planets, with moderate levels of gravity on their surface. This requires a universal force such as gravitation. This force must be strong enough to hold planets together, but not so strong that organisms living on the planet have to endure a crushing force that always keeps them pinned in the same place on the ground. So a habitable universe needs not just a universal force of gravitation, but one that is neither too large nor small.

Another habitability necessity is a relatively empty vacuum. By this I simply mean a vacuum that has less mass-energy than solid steel. This is something we take for granted, but (as discussed here) there are physics considerations that imply such a thing should be incredibly unlikely. Strangely, quantum field theory predicts that there should be all kinds of quantum contributions to the vacuum that should cause it to be incredibly dense with mass-energy. This is an unresolved problem of physics known as the cosmological constant problem or the “vacuum catastrophe” problem.

Another habitability necessity is the existence of both carbon and oxygen in adequate amounts. As far as we know, life could not exist without either one. When physicists imagine universes with greatly different physics, particularly a strong nuclear force much stronger or weaker, it often means a universe with lots of carbon and no oxygen, or lots of oxygen and no carbon.

This is not a complete list of habitability necessities, but is enough to clarify the concept.

The Main Habitability Boosters

Now let's look at some habitability boosters – things that are not absolutely necessary for life to exist in a universe, but things that will tend to make life much more widespread and long-lasting if they do exist. The first habitability luxury I can think of is radiant stars – stars that produce light and heat.

It may surprise you that I have classified radiant stars as a habitability booster rather than a habitability necessity. How could life exist without stars? But the benefit that stars or suns supply is light and heat, and a planet might have light and heart without any radiant star near by. Volcanic activity, geological activity and tidal effects can produce light and heat, such as we see on Jupiter's moon Io. 

 

We can actually imagine intelligent life evolving on a small number of planets in a universe that had no radiant stars. It would require a rare type of planet which had volcanic activity or geological activity or tidal activity that consistently produced heat and light over many millions or billions of years. Even though there would be probably less than one planet in a thousand that would have such characteristics, there would still be quite a few such planets in a universe with trillions of planets.

But it could be argued that such planets could not exist, because carbon and oxygen are formed in radiant stars. However, even if there were no radiant stars there would probably be rare. freak events that would cause carbon and oxygen to be created in rare spots – events such as collisions of large astronomical bodies.

It has been estimated that the total number of stars in the observable universe is something like 10 to the twenty ninth power. Let's imagine an alternate universe in which heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen only form from freak events such as collisions of large astronomical bodies. That would still leave you with trillions of planets that might have heavy elements such as oxygen and carbon. If you then imagine no radiant stars, and life only forming on planets that gave off heat and light through geological activity, you would still have a few hundred, thousand or million such planets (possibly even billions).

So we must classify radiant stars as a habitability booster rather than a habitability necessity. There is a related thing that we can classify as a stronger and more specific habitability booster: the existence of sun-like stars. It is believed that intelligent life might evolve on planets revolving around small red stars. But it is believed that if a planet existed in the habitable zone of a red dwarf star, the planet would be so close to the star that it would keep the same side pointed towards the star, without rotation. This would probably limit life to existing in a ring-like area of the planet, between the side facing the star, and the side facing away from it. If a universe has not just red dwarf stars but also sun-like stars, it will tend to be more habitable, with more life (all other things being equal). Planets revolving around sun-like stars can have life existing all over them, not just in a narrow ring between the front and the back of the planet. 

Another thing that must be classified as a habitability booster is the presence of large amounts of both carbon and oxygen. Having lots of carbon and oxygen around may be necessary for a universe with a huge amount of life. But for a universe to be barely habitable, with only a tiny amount of life, it needs only to have a few lucky spots where there is a decent amount of carbon and oxygen.

Another thing we can list as a habitability booster is low radioactivity. In our universe radioactivity has a negligible effect on habitability, because only rare very heavy elements such as uranium are radioactive. But we can imagine a universe in which the strong nuclear force was much weaker. In that case most elements would be radioactive. The effect would probably be that creatures such as us could not live longer than about 20 or 25 years before dying of cancer caused by radioactivity.

Another thing we can list as a habitability booster is low radiation from sources such as gamma ray blasts and supernova explosions. We can easily imagine a universe a little different in which there would be a high chance of any newly evolved intelligent species being wiped out by gamma ray blasts or supernova explosions, within a few million years of when it appeared.

Another thing we can list as a habitability booster is a low static electricity. This is something that we take for granted, but which is extremely unlikely in random universes. We have low amounts of static electricity because the number of protons in the solar system is roughly equal to the number of electrons, and the charge on the proton (1836 times more massive than the electron) is the exact opposite of the charge on the electron. But if such coincidences did not exist, we might live on a planet that was teeming with local charge imbalances -- lethal concentrations of static electricity. On such a planet it might be very common for organisms to be killed when a creature simply stepped on a rock with enough excess electrons to cause a lethal shock.

Four Types of Universes

Having listed these types of habitability necessities and habitability boosters, it is now easy to categorize four types of universes. They are as follows:

Uninhabitable universe: A universe in which intelligent life cannot evolve anywhere, because it is missing one or more of the habitability necessities.

Barely habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, but none or only one or two of the habitability boosters.

Moderately habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, and roughly half of the habitability boosters.

Abundantly habitable universe: A universe that has all of the habitability necessities, and all or almost all of the habitability boosters.

Let's imagine some universes, and then classify them as belonging to these four types.

Universe 1: There are no sun-like stars, but many red dwarf stars. In almost all solar systems in which a life-bearing planet revolves around a red dwarf star, the planet keeps the same side always pointing toward the star, and life exists in a narrow band between that side and the other side of the planet. There's also a lot more gamma ray bursts than in our universe.

What type of universe is this? It seems like a moderately habitable universe.

Universe 2: There are no radiant stars at all, and the night sky always looks dark. Carbon and oxygen are rare. But in certain rare places some freak events such as astronomical collisions led to local abundances of carbon and oxygen that eventually became planets. In a small number of these planets, special geological conditions created enough light and heat for intelligent life to evolve. But the future prospects are dim for such life forms, since a change in geological conditions might deprive them of the heat and light they need.

What type of universe is this? It seems like a barely habitable universe.

Universe 3: There are radiant stars, and countless stable planets. There are not just red stars, but also stars like the sun. There are no habitability factors that should limit the universe from having trillions of planets bearing intelligent life. Planets typically enjoy low amounts of harmful radiation, low radioactivity, and low amounts of static electricity. There are trillions of planets on which nothing physical prevents intelligent life from existing for billions of years.

Which type of universe is this? It's an abundantly habitable universe.

Which type of universe do we live in? Each of the habitability boosters I previously listed are conditions of our universe. And obviously our universe has all of the habitability necessities, or we wouldn't exist. So we must classify our universe as an abundantly habitable universe.

Recent news stories bolster this conclusion. A significant fraction of the universe's galaxies are rather spherical-shaped elliptical galaxies different from our own spiral galaxy. It used to be believed that elliptical galaxies must be lifeless, because of a lack of heavy elements. But recently scientists concluded that large elliptical galaxies can produce up to 10,000 times as many Earth-like planets as our galaxy. It seems, in fact, that all of the three major types of galaxies in our universe (spiral, irregular, and elliptical) can support planets with life. The Kepler telescope has helped confirm that there are planets all over the place in our galaxy. We know of very few or no habitability shortfalls in our universe, so it must be classified as abundantly habitable.

But what type of universe should we expect our universe to be? This is a fascinating question with some interesting philosophical implications. In my next post I will discuss this question, discussing the relative probabilities of getting the types of universes I have listed. I will show that conventional assumptions like those made by most scientists lead to shockingly erroneous predictions about the type of universe our universe should be. 

As I will show in my next post, without the cheat of assuming there must be an observer, such assumptions lead to the prediction that our universe should be uninhabitable. Even if one makes such a cheat, by assuming an observer, such assumptions lead to the prediction that we should live in a barely habitable universe much, much less favorable to life than the one we live in.