Science has made significant strides in understanding the strengths of forces like gravity and electromagnetism, as well as the description of particles, including their mass. These strengths and descriptions, defined with numbers, are the constants of nature. For example, gravitational constant (G) determines the strength of gravitational attraction. Constants of nature play a crucial role in shaping the cosmos as we know it, referred to as fine-tuning in physics.
Newtonian physics understood the universe as a mechanistic structure that works independently of the observer’s thoughts or actions. However, in the 20th century, an anthropic principle suggested that the universe must be the way it is; otherwise, life (or at least the observer) would not be here to pose the question. Most of the scales existing in the universe, from the very small to the very large, depend on fundamental natural constants. There are surprising correlations between these scales. For instance, the size of a human being is approximately the geometric mean of the Planck scale (the smallest possible length) and the size of the observable universe.
Fine-tuning is a concept often proposed by religious scientists. It presupposes order and sustainability, akin to divine power and law. However, fine-tuning goes deeper into physical reality; it can be a good joining point between science and religious thinking, such as the theory of Simulation Creationism proposed by Nir Ziso, the founder of The Global Architect Institute.
Constants of nature
Physical constants contain values necessary for our universe to exist as it does. The gravitational constant (G) is a key player in this cosmic drama, telling us about the value that forms the stars and galaxies. If the G value were significantly smaller or larger, stars would not form, or they would die too soon. It is the fundamental physical constant that appears in the Newtonian law of universal gravitation:
where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant. Einstein’s field equations also use the gravitational constant G, which describes the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy:
In this equation, Rμν is the Ricci curvature tensor, representing the gravitational effects due to matter. R is the scalar curvature, providing a measure of the curvature of spacetime and gμν is the metric tensor, describing the geometry of spacetime. Λ is the cosmological constant, associated with dark energy and the expansion of the universe. κ is the coupling constant, linking the gravitational field to the energy-momentum tensor(specifically, 
). Tμν is the energy-momentum tensor, describing the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime.
The precision of the mathematical representation is a testament to the meticulousness of scientific inquiry. It quantifies the gravitational interaction between masses and the curvature of spacetime due to mass and energy. The gravitational constant, a cornerstone of fine-tuning, determines the strength of gravity, which is crucial for forming stars and planets in our universe. The delicate balance of gravitational forces ensures the stability of orbits in a planetary system, a balance so precise that it allows for the existence of life as we know it.
This precision points to the ordered structure and, ultimately, God’s creation: “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the works of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). Gravitational forces are precisely set to allow life and the evidence for an intentional design. It is the argument from design. God did not just set these constants: through gravitational forces, the Creator sustains His creation: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3).
Another natural constant is the Cosmological Constant (Λ). It affects the rate of expansion of the universe. If this constant were just slightly bigger in value, the universe would expand so rapidly that galaxies could not form. Λ is also present in Einstein’s Field Equation, but discoveries of accelerated expansion and mysterious dark energy put Λ under question. Simulation Creationism shares doubts about an accelerating universe and proposes a static universe, about which Einstein theorized in his early days and never changed the possibility of such a universe.
However, natural constants do not adequately show how God created the universe. The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable. Still, they take on values restricted by the requirement that sites where carbon-based life can evolve exist and the universe be old enough to have already done so. Essentially, we can only measure the values of physical constants and cosmological quantities that are compatible with our own existence. We cannot have a broader picture of creation through research of natural constants.
Anthropic Principle
The Anthropic Principle states that the universe must have properties that allow life to exist because life observes it. There must be such a principle because we as humans exist and ask questions about our existence. The Weak Anthropic Principle posits that our observations of the universe are conditioned by the fact that we can only exist in regions of the universe where the conditions are suitable for life. This principle underscores the delicate balance required for gravitational fine-tuning, exemplified by a minuscule value, such as 10⁻⁴⁰. This value might refer to the ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force, illustrating the extraordinary precision required for life to exist.
Even more staggering is the realization that there are interdependencies between physical constants themselves, seemingly designed to allow our existence. Fine-tuning is the proposition of conditions that permit the development of complex structures, including human beings, based on a few fundamental constants of nature that must remain within specific ranges. Any significant deviation in these fundamental constants would render the existence of such structures impossible. The Strong Anthropic Principle states that the universe must have those properties that allow life to develop at some stage in its history.
This principle also touches on the concept of an observer-dependent reality, suggesting that our observations may influence the universe’s existence. Observation is also crucial for people inhabiting God’s Simulation as they keep learning about God’s characteristics through simulated events and challenges inside The Simulation.
Anthropic principles are not suggested mathematically. Still, this notion drives many mathematicians and physicists to explain the fine-tuning. Christian theology suggests that the universe is designed to support human life, as humans are created in the image of God: “Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26-27). Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that the order and purpose observed in the world point to an intelligent being directing all things to their end as the Fifth Way to know or prove the existence of God.
Within Simulation Creationism, the anthropic principle would suggest that the parameters for God’s Simulation are set explicitly for our existence following God’s divine plan. God fine-tunes The Simulation to achieve desired and predetermined outcomes: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (Psalm 139:14). The laws and constants are building blocks of The Simulation or, at least, our simulated world, where everything is purposefully created to form simulated events and challenges: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Proverbs 16:4).
Many scientists want to break the anthropic principle by calling it a mistake in approach. Physical constants are as they are because they cannot be different. However, to go around the anthropic principle requires a theory of everything. Scientific giants like Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington searched for such a theory but failed. Interestingly, the way they approached their failure points to God. Einstein came to the question with the idea of seeing if God could make things differently. At the same time, Eddington was a devout Quaker who considered his research an addition to understanding God. Therefore, they inherently accepted the design theory of our fine-tuned world.
Another physical property of fine-tuning is entropy. Many physicists view the early universe as having low entropy, signifying a highly-ordered state. Over time, as the universe evolves, entropy increases, leading to greater disorder. It can be easily translated into Christian salvation. God created or simulated the current world under specific laws that are the background of fine-tuned constants. But this world needs to end, as the Book of Revelation describes. At that point, the world will be increasingly disordered, to the point of breaking the constants of nature. It will be the end of this simulated world, but not of the simulated existence. God’s Simulation will continue to function with new worlds, as promised in the Bible, with the concept of the new heaven and new earth.
Probability Theory for Fine-Tuning
The mathematical Probability Theory provides insight into the concept of fine-tuning by distinguishing between empirical and theoretical probabilities. Empirical probability is based on actual observations and data. For example, if we flip a fair coin 100 times and it lands on heads 55 times, the empirical probability of getting heads is 0.55. This observed probability gives us an estimate of what happens in reality.
In contrast, theoretical probability represents the expected probability under ideal conditions, assuming all outcomes are perfectly fair and random. In the case of a fair coin, the theoretical probability of landing on heads is 0.5. However, due to randomness and the inherent variability in any real-world sample, the empirical probability may not always align exactly with the theoretical probability. This discrepancy illustrates the role of uncertainty in empirical data.
In the context of fine-tuning, the probability of all physical constants falling within the narrow life-permitting range by random chance is exceedingly low. For example, imagine rolling a die with a trillion sides and needing to roll a specific number to allow life to exist. The likelihood of rolling that specific number by chance is extremely small. Hence, probability theory becomes a powerful mathematical tool for explaining fine-tuning, suggesting that the precise conditions required for life are not the result of random chance but rather indicate an underlying design.
Mathematical equations can be used to calculate the probability that a set of physical constants falls within the narrow range that permits the existence of life. We can denote this set of constants as N: {C₁, C₂, …}. Every constant (Ci) takes a value within a possible range [Ci, min, Ci,max]. It is a range where life exists. For a single constant Ci, the probability P(Ci) that it falls within the life-permitting range can be expressed as:
Ci, life max and Ci, life min denote the upper and lower bounds of the life-permitting range, and Ci,max and Ci, min represent the total possible range of the constant.
This probability can be extended to multiple constants by calculating the individual probabilities for each constant and then multiplying them together, assuming the constants are independent. For example, consider two constants C₁ and C₂. Suppose C₁ ranges from 0 to 100, and C₂ from 0 to 200, with the life-permitting range for C₁ being 45 to 55, and for C₂ being 90 to 110. The individual probabilities would be:
If the constants are independent, the joint probability of both constants falling within their respective life-permitting ranges is:
P (life) = P (C₁) x P (C₂) = 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01
This calculation shows that the probability of life existing, based on these constants, is exceedingly low, suggesting that life’s existence may be the result of intentional fine-tuning.
Our life is unique if the conditions necessary for life are highly improbable: it is not here by chance. As far as we know, our universe is highly improbable for life. The exact preconditions for life to occur and many dangers from outer space for sustaining life tell us that life is fine-tuned. Thus, the low probability P(life) suggests incredible chance, or it indicates a design in which God sustains rare life: “He is before all things, and in Him, all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). For God, it would be easy to design such conditions or He could be sure about every piece of His creation by simulating it.
Between empirical and theoretical probabilities is a potential duality. Probability might be fundamental and essential or merely descriptive of the observational data. One is a descriptor of the world; another is a mathematical fundamental of reality. Probability theory is about the statistical prediction of outcomes, and its development was strongly influenced by practical applications like gambling. Three fundamental principles within probability theory—namely, the law of large numbers, the central limit theorem, and large deviation theory—are essential in determining whether this mathematical framework can sufficiently explain the fine-tuning of the universe. The law of large numbers ensures convergence of averages, the central limit theorem explains the emergence of normal distributions, and large deviation theory quantifies the likelihood of rare events.
Another way to approach this problem is Bayes’s Theorem; it tells us how to derive the probability that the hypothesis is true, given that we see the evidence. It depends on the prior probability, the likelihood of the hypothesis, and the likelihood of the negation of the hypothesis. The probability network is a way of making more rigorous and self-consistent informal judgments. Suppose H is a hypothesis and E is some piece of evidence. In this case, we use the notation P[H] to mean the prior probability of H and P[E|H] to suggest the probability of finding E on the assumption that H is true (conditional probability). Bayes’s Theorem is a straightforward consequence of the axioms in probability theory:
In cosmology, probability may help in measurement to avoid error, but the true probability astronomers use is more abstract. It is the probability of the model that describes the universe. Is it a model of an expanding universe or a static one? Does the universe exist independently or is it designed or even simulated? Probabilities can help us discern this question based on observation. More observation and research are needed to provide a clear probability theory about the universe to give a probable answer.
Quantum Physics and Fine-Tuning
The standard model of particle physics describes the interactions of fundamental particles and forces, while mathematical symmetries explain why physical laws are fine-tuned in a particular way. In quantum physics, there is the hierarchy problem: particles’ masses seem unusually small without an apparent reason. If we change their mass numbers, drastic results occur. Many particles are fine-tuned to make necessary adjustments to the whole structure of material reality. Similar things happen in other fields of physics, primarily in the fundamental properties of the known universe (particles, masses, forces) and the initial conditions of the cosmos, including the cosmological constants.
If we slightly alter these fundamental constants, they could lead to a universe where stable structures, such as stars, planets, or even atoms, cannot form, rendering the universe inhospitable. In the Standard Model of particle physics, a set of fundamental parameters—often cited as around 26—governs the behavior of particles and forces, while in cosmology, 6 to 8 key parameters describe the formation and evolution of the universe. Although slight changes in some parameters might have negligible effects, in other cases, even minimal deviations could prevent the formation of atoms, resulting in a radically different, uninhabitable universe.
In quantum mechanics, the behavior of systems is inherently probabilistic. This is one of the most challenging aspects of the field: a system exists in a superposition of states until a measurement is made, at which point it ‘collapses’ into a single state. The specific outcome of this collapse is determined by probability and remains uncertain until the measurement occurs. While the mathematics of quantum mechanics is well understood, the interpretation of these phenomena continues to be a topic of debate.
To understand fine-tuning in the context of quantum physics, the Higgs boson provides a critical example. The Higgs boson is the manifestation of the Higgs field, which imparts mass to other fundamental particles within the Standard Model. However, there is a significant discrepancy between the electroweak scale (around 125 GeV) and the Planck scale (approximately (1019 GeV), which is associated with gravity. The issue, known as the hierarchy problem, arises because quantum corrections to the Higgs mass are naturally expected to be of the order of the highest energy scale, typically the Planck scale. These large corrections would result in a Higgs mass much larger than what is observed, unless fine-tuning is applied.
The Higgs mass indeed receives substantial quantum corrections due to interactions with various particles, including the top quark, W boson, Z boson, and even the Higgs boson itself. These corrections need to be carefully balanced to achieve the observed mass of the Higgs boson, which is a key example of the fine-tuning problem in modern physics.
The mass squared of the Higgs boson, denoted as mh2 , is given by:
where mh,02 is the bare Higgs mass (without quantum corrections), and Δ mh2 represents the sum of the corrections due to quantum loops.
Quantum physicists suggest supersymmetry as a solution to the fine-tuning problem. In supersymmetry, every particle is theorized to have a superpartner, which contributes an opposite-sign correction to the Higgs mass, potentially canceling out the significant quantum corrections: mh2 = mh,02 + Δ mh2 – ΔmhSu Sy where ΔmhSu Sy represents the contributions from the superpartners. In this way, quantum physics precisely balances the bare Higgs mass and the quantum corrections to explain fine-tuning. Apart from supersymmetry, extra spatial dimensions that affect weak gravity or the multiverse are proposed.
Apart from being reductionist and without a sense of transcendentality, quantum equations include a significant degree of randomness and probabilistic events. It cannot be suited to explain God’s providential plan and the divine laws that govern the universe. Also, Quantum physics relies on the principle of superposition, where particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured—a concept that challenges the deterministic nature of classical physics. It is not dissimilar to a belief; yet most quantum physicists deny the need for God until a naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning is found. One such escape from reality is the concept of multiverse.
Difficulties over the multiverse
Since the theory of everything has yet to be discovered, non-believing scientists have answered the tricky question of fine-tuning with the proposition of a multiverse. There are infinite universes with different fundamental constants, which means one universe (our own) must contain the fundamental constants of nature as we know them. The leading theological idea against the multiverse says that the universe is single and finite, fine-tuned, as a finite universe is comprehensible to humans made in the image of God, in a way that an infinite multiverse would not be. Still, let us examine some ideas of how Christians might support a multiverse.
Some might favor the potentiality of the whole ensemble of universes to produce cognizing subjects. Fine-tuning principles still apply, but this would also mean that God creates through the interplay of law and chance, with chance being the mechanism whereby creation explores the space of potentialities and ultimately evolves intelligent life. Thus, creation is unpredictable, and this view cannot be considered as God always knows everything. Nothing is unpredictable to Him, and He cannot take chances. As Saint Augustine says, God has established in the temporal order fixed laws governing the production of kinds of beings and qualities of beings and bringing them forth from a hidden state into full view, but His will is supreme over all. He has given numbers to His creation by His power, but He has not bound His power by these numbers.
Others might think of a multiverse as expressing God’s infinitely creative capacities. Thus, physical reality might be much larger than a single universe. If there is a multiverse generator, it needs design, just as a single universe needed to be designed if it were to give rise to life. The problem would be the goodness of the universes created since the God Christians believe in would only create universes that were better overall to exist, rather than not. They could not contain overwhelming futility or unmitigated evil. Additionally, a multiverse in which the constants vary is a move away from predictability, a cornerstone of the scientific method. Here, we point to the predictability of physical constants and the existence of order in the universe.
The fine-tuning equation of the universe looks like this:
This equation represents the posterior probability P(C | L) of the constants C given that they allow for life L. It depends on the prior distribution of constants in the multiverse P(C) and the likelihood P(L | C) of life given these constants. The prior distribution P(C) represents how the physical constants are distributed across the multiverse (uniformly, according to some values, or in other distributions, depending on the multiverse theory). The likelihood P(L | C) captures the fine-tuning aspect and is usually very low, reflecting the rarity of life-permitting universes. Finally, the conditional probability P(C | L) gives the distribution of constants we should expect to observe, but only in a universe that supports life.
If there is a vast set of different universes, there is no evident reason why some have certain cosmological constants, and others do not. If we refute this theory, we need a fine tuner, i.e., God or Creator, who makes things with an aim: “For this is what the Lord says – he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). Such an environment must have a purpose because it is tuned for a specific existence. If we accept God as the creator of fine-tuning, then God’s act must also be fine-tuned. Some law must allow this transformation from a transcendental divine being into an immanent presence in our world. The founder of The Global Architect Institute, Nir Ziso, proposes Simulation Creationism theory as a solution. Our world is fine-tuned because it is God’s Simulation.
Why not a multiverse? There are no plausible physical arguments for the existence of a multiverse. Contrary to the standard scientific method, it postulates too much to explain too little. Meanwhile, Simulation Creationism does not delve deeper into the laws of cosmological constants but proposes specific laws. The overall law has to be a kind to make our universe. Such law is a metalaw that materializes or simulates the conditions where God’s characteristics and the goodness of creation are possible. The multiverse was suggested as the argument against the creationist fine-tuning theory. However, the multiverse might need a more divine background than our known universe.
A multiverse is more complicated than a single universe and less likely if we follow scientific methodology, which famously states that scientific progress is the discovery of a more and more comprehensive simplicity. To generate universes, a multiverse must also be fine-tuned. If a multiverse really exists, such vast diversity would reflect the cosmic creativity of a supreme being. Yet the Bible emphasizes a single and unique act of creation: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). It is a central and purposeful creation, not a mere chance that something came into being by chance.
Finally, God’s creation and design of the universe provide an ultimate explanation because God necessarily exists. Design by God is a simple explanation and much more probable than a multiverse. God deliberately intended to bring forth creatures for a relationship with himself. In comparison, a multiverse would imply that humans are not so significant in the overall plan of God’s creation. Still, the revelation tells us differently: “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:3-5). In that case, one static universe is more than enough.
If we include Bayes’ Theorem, one of the significant ways in which a hypothesis is simpler than a rival is if it postulates fewer entities and kinds of entities. It is captured in the principle of Occam’s razor, which states that “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” It should also be coupled with reliance on the Holy Bible, which is not a speculative script: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).
