The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

GeneralProfessor of physics and prolific author of popular science books, Paul Davies, has aimed his acclaimed communication talents at the controversial question of why the universe is so “uncannily fit for life.” Davies’ bona fides and rare ability to take complicated scientific subjects and craft engaging narratives for the general public have resulted in a long list of top-selling works from some of the world’s most prestigious publishers. In "The Goldilocks Enigma," Davies takes readers on his journey of investigation into a cosmos he feels has been “etched deeply with life and mind,” and does so as someone convincingly independent of the scientific consensus and organized religion. To Davies, the universe is “about something;” it has a coherent scheme of things, and he isn’t afraid to ask the big "why" questions.Goldilocks is structured in the classical education trivium sequence of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. After establishing the context of his investigations as a material universe that obeys underlying physical and mathematical laws, Davies spends three chapters going over the basics of Big Bang cosmology, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and particle physics. He then shifts from the grammar of cosmology to an exposition of the various theories that attempt make sense of the cosmos: unification, multiverse, design, and even self-creation theories. He moves finally to the rhetoric stage in an afterward titled, “Ultimate Explanations,” where concise summaries of the main positions examined in the book are given and his own preference is briefly mentioned. Interestingly, he closes the book with his assessment of how everyone else approaches the enigma of a universe fit for life and appears to conclude most scientists are either atheist pragmatists who don’t really ask the big questions or they are ideologues using science to advance an extra-scientific agenda.Davies doesn’t make an extended case for his personal views, but expresses only a general inclination toward there being some sort of embedded “life-principle” or “self-creating” system to the universe. Readers familiar with the NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel will find in Davies a view similar to that in Nagel’s book "Mind and Cosmos" (e.g. the universe has a vital force, an inherent mind, and a built-in rationality that gives it a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life and consciousness.) To be fair, Davies doesn’t set himself up as some sort of superior, unbiased judge and he affirms that he, and every other scientist, “inevitably formulate opinions that draw on a more general worldview, incorporating personal, cultural, and even religious elements.”EvaluationThe general public rarely gets more than scientific sound bites from major media outlets and even “science” networks, so a key strength of Goldilocks is in its excellent primer on Big Bang cosmology and accessible treatment of “weird” science like warped space, string theory, dark energy and cosmic inflation. Davies provides simple conceptual diagrams that accompany jargon-free explanations and routinely pulls non-essential (but interesting!) detailed explanations out of the flow and puts them in reference boxes. Most readers will also appreciate the frequent references and anecdotes of historical discoveries and particular scientists. There’s no better way to tell the story of general relativity theory than to envelope it as Davies does in Einstein’s self-deprecating account of his “greatest blunder.”Similarly, Davies deserves credit for an extended review of the various aspects of the currently popular “multiverse” theories and calling to the readers’ attention those things which have support versus the parts that are pure speculation. In particular, he notes the lack of explanatory elegance in using an “overabundance of entities, most of which could never be observed, even in principle” and he reminds us that “a theory that can explain anything at all really explains nothing.”When Davies moves from multiverse musing to his exposition on a “self-synthesizing” universe, the reader may note a tone of excitement and more space being devoted to a positive case for the theory. This is no doubt due to Davies own admitted inclination toward this sort of explanation, but it’s also certainly the result of Davies respect for physicist John Archibald Wheeler (to whom the book is dedicated). As a “master of the thought experiment,” Wheeler inspired the content of Davies “How Come Existence” chapter that nicely rounds-out the survey of views.Admirable humility is demonstrated in Davies’ summary of all his offered answers to the question “how come existence?” He acknowledges that many will find all the approaches unsatisfactory and he questions whether we have reached an intellectual impasse. However, the multiple “self-_____” descriptions in the last chapter demand a specific philosophical criticism. Philosophers such as William Lane Craig and others have successfully argued that self-creation is logically incoherent and simply nonsense, so for Davies to allocate so much space to the “self-explaining universe” model and not even mention that philosophers see a fatal flaw in it counts against the book as being as thorough as the material deserves.Finally, readers with a theistic, and especially Christian, worldview will likely find Goldilocks disappointing in its assessment of the explanatory options for “why the universe is just right for life.” Davies is thoroughly naturalistic in his worldview, and while he tosses Intelligent Design into the mix, he settles for strawman arguments and fails to interact with the claims of ID theory. He betrays his ignorance of the theory by incorrectly associating it with William Paley’s analogical approach, thinking it raises the impotent “who then made God?” conundrum, and even pulling the dreaded “god-of-the-gaps” card. (An honest study of works like "Signature In The Cell"> by Stephen Meyer would have supported a more informed discussion.) He also repeatedly uses theistic-friendly ideas (e.g. scheme of things, a script, universe looks designed), but belittles all creation accounts and names the bible specifically. This is truly unfortunate since there is at least one orthodox Christian creation model that not only accepts the actual experimental data Davies documents, but also constructively integrates the science with the creation account in the bible. Physicist Hugh Ross has written extensively on Big Bang cosmology, relativity theory, particle physics, and quantum mechanics and most particularly, the fine-tuning of the universe. But rather than dismiss the creation account in the bible philosophically, before the scientific evidence even has a chance to speak, Ross and his “Reasons to Believe” organization engage the science at the research level, evaluate its concordance with the text of the bible and invite professional criticism. Had Davies seriously investigated the work of scientists like Ross, he would have found a wealth of resources consistent with the physics he already accepts but actually engages theology in a meaningful way. This effort would have enhanced the book for readers of all worldviews.RecommendationGoldilocks is recommended to readers who are interested in more than a casual conversation about cosmology and the intersection of philosophy and science yet have no thirst for mathematical gymnastics or a refresher on Platonism. The absence of dogmatic assertions for particular views and Davies’ willingness to call out those who preach them makes the book a refreshing change for readers seeking a tenor distinct from that found in authors like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, or even Stephen Hawking.

Paul Davies book, "The Goldilocks Enigma," is an absolute page-turner. At the begging of the book he teaches you're about our universe. He teaches of how we come to accept the big bang cosmology, and how our universe began. Essentially what Paul Davies is talking about in the book is how we came to see the universe as more and more finely tuned. Many scientists don't deny this; rather, they simply ignore it or brush it off for philosophers to handle. The fact that the cosmological constants are so fine tuned for the existence of life raises a perplexing question that can't be ignored. Paul Davies in this book shows how the universe is so bio-friendly for the existence of life, and then at the end of his book try's to extrapolate why the universe is the way it is, and through this examination a "conundrum" arises.It is indeed astonishing on how life is balanced on a razor edge, and that if these cosmological constants were to change, life may not be possible. One example of this fine tuning is that the ratio of the strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces can only vary slightly from its observed value 10^40, then life may not be able to form. If the constant was a bit stronger planets might not be able to form, or if it the constant was a bit weaker, then stars might not be able to become a supernova (which is important for our existence)(144). The elements that make us up were not formed in the big bang but in the center of stars, and this nuclear reaction as Hoyle (a prominent atheist mathematician), "realized that if it weren't for the coincidence that a nuclear resonance exists at just the right energy, there would be next to no carbon in the universe, and probably no life" (138). Indeed, many physicist don't argue that the universe isn't fine tune for life, as it is clearly is.This leads us to ask on why a universe is so finely tuned for the existence of life, when other possible universes are just as equally probable to arise. Most scientist simply contemplate that the universe is fine tuned for life because we wouldn't be hear other wise; in other words, it is just plain luck. A more satisfactory answer are those that say that our universe is just one in a sea of universes floating, and therefore, explains why some of the of universes might be friendly for carbon based observers. Others from the religious group say that an intelligent designer fine-tuned the cosmological constants the way they are. Each answer leads us to contemplate on their inadequacy to fully explain not only the fine tuning of the universe, but also our own existence.Paul Davies, being an atheist, doesn't believe that the universe has been finely tuned by any creator; rather, he believes that the universe is some how constrain to allow observers, and that postulating a creator is unnecessary as the universe can explain itself. What Paul Davies believe is that universe A over time reaches back to the singularity and causes universe B, and universe B reaches back to the singularity to cause universe A. In this cycle Universe A existence is explained by universe B, and universe B is explained by universe A. Therefore, Paul Davies escapes the conundrum of explaining the existence of the universe as it explains itself. However, as Paul Davies has said in the book, it doesn't explain why the universe is the way it is, or why it exist in the first place.However, there is a problem with this self explaining universe. It simply does not make sense for time to go back or forward to a time that no longer exist, since time and space ended at the singularity. It would make more sense that the new big bang would exist within its own time, not going back or forward to universe A or B. Since it is illogical to believe that time can go travel to a point of time that no longer exist, we shouldn't hold this view. So this to me is not a valid way to escape the conundrum of trying to explain our existence.Being a Muslim, I would argue that a designer is the only coherent argument to explain our existence and the bio-friendliness we see in our universe. The Kalam Cosmological argument states that:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.And we can say that this cause is timeless, space less, immaterial (since material can only exist within space and time), and personal; In other words, God. Secondly, the design inference is the most logical conclusion since when anything meets a specified functional outcome against a vast array of other probabilities, it is illogical to say that it is by chance (which Paul Davies would not argue against.) So we can indeed say that a designer is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.Paul Davies views the design inference of the universe as god of the gaps, and can simply be asserted on faith; however, we do have evidence for a god as being the best explanation for the origin of the universe as I stated above. It is not god of the gaps because we do have good philosophical reasons to believe it is god. However, Paul Davies asks a question of who design the designer. Essentially there is a point of which you have to take it at faith, but that is irrelevant. The best explanation doesn't need an explanation, and if you say otherwise then you are denying your own existence because there is only a finite amount of explanations to explain our existence. This is why philosophers of science state that the best explanation doesn't need an explanation. However, it doesn't solve all the puzzles, but it solves them better than any other competing argument.This is an excellent book that shows how the universe is so bio-friendly for life, and asking the big question of why it is, and why we even exist when something else could have existed. At the beginning of his book he goes through teaching us the Big Bang and other interesting facts that still perplex the physicist. He then goes to show how modern discovery's is leading us to discover how our universe is so bio-friendly when it could have been otherwise. In recent times scientist have been trying to explain this bio-friendliness seen in our universe as well as our existence. Taking time in his book to examine each case and levy's a problem within each "solution" to the problem, even his own solution. It is a book that would make you question whether you even exist, and not just part of a computer simulation of an advance civilization upon an infinite set of universes that may exist.

Balanced review of the fine tuning enigma, including multimedia, brute fact, superior being and other possibilities. Some of Davies personal preferences are noted with rationales.

Seriously, wow, one of the best books i've read in the last few years. This book fundamentally changed the way i think about existence, meaning of life, and the future of humanity on the planet. Can't say that about very many books. The material is pretty heavy in physics, so if you are a total laymen when it comes to physics, this might not be the best "intro to cosmology", but someone with some background in the subject will love this book.The thing I like about Paul Davies' writing, is that he is making some pretty insane claims, some statements about the nature of reality which some might find to be so bold and confident and "out there" as to be egotistically audacious, and yet he manages to lay out his language in such a way that you don't feel he is stepping beyond his bounds, he is merely making suggestions as to the philosophical implications which one could extrapolate from recent (and some not so recent) discoveries made in quantum physics and cosmology. He is basically toying with "thought experiments" and drawing premises to their natural conclusions. His philosophy is both bold and humble and his language is both succinct and poetic.

This book is a review of cosmology and particle physics during the past fifty years - surely one of the most exciting periods for the two subjects. Davies offers his personal interpretation of the current position - the hope that "mind" will turn out to be a crucial part of the universe and not just a minor, un-important side-effect of creation.New instruments and fresh ideas have produced a wealth of interesting ideas. Some theories might, in earlier times, have been regarded as merely speculative or over ambitious. However, improvements in observational methods and technology have given us clear windows into some surprising areas. Davies looks at some huge questions about very small things, such as how many fundamental particles make up the world? He also examines the very large: is there just one universe, or a huge number of parallel creations, a multiverse?At every turn he explains things clearly and non-mathematically. This does mean that the reader sometimes has to take things on trust, but one of the great strengths of his book is that Paul Davies is careful to point out which ideas are controversial or tentative, and which are firmly established. He presents us with results from physics and discusses the implications for theology, mathematics and philosophy. He tells the story of a very busy period in science and guides the reader through complex, unresolved debates. For those who want to look deeper, he includes many detailed notes, but grouped at the end of his book to avoid breaking the flow of his narrative.I found this an exciting and challenging book to read. I heartily recommend it to anyone who is interested in big questions and is willing to live with the fact that many of the answers can't be summed up in a tabloid headline.

Not a book to skip through lightly but I think for the first time I have really got a grip of the big numbers involved in light years and the expanding universe. I have since produced a spreadsheet for my 10-year-old grandson to put time into perspective from the 'big bang' through the formation of planet earth, the start and end of the age of the dinosaurs, the pyramids, Darwin, the Wright brothers and the first PC. That got him thinking!

This is a masterpiece of mind-expanding non-fiction. Paul introduces you gently and lucidly to the unbelievable wonders of the universe and how it seems to be tailor-made to nurture life. Regardless of whether you are a believer or not, you will be left with a sense of wonderment about how everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, came into such divine balance as to allow the universe to sustain it's existence, let alone support life. However, on the down side (at least as far as I am concerned) the second half of the book strays from the science and into the philosophical and, for me, that's when it gets boring - hence only 3 stars.

The book is a very good read though I suspect you have to have a bit of a scientific background to appreciate fully. But it has answered some questions that I have had for years about inflation theory and the continuing puzzle of what dark energy and matter can possibly be.

I've read this a couple of times now mainly because I find it really interesting and logical to follow (although not easy). It explains difficult scientific concepts step-by-step but also from a philosophical point of view too. The author is honest about his religious and scientific views which is refreshing if you want to avoid being made to feel like an ignorant agnostic by Dawkins!