Both science and science fiction are better off in a fine-tuned universe where the laws really govern and make sense. That is, they can be discovered by minds because they are the product of a Mind, whether that Mind is understood in traditional religious terms, in panpsychist terms, or some other terms.

That seems to be the universe we live in and it is deeply unsettling to many prominent minds in science, including Dartmouth College theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser. He took a run at the problem at Big Think earlier this month, making clear that he thinks that we are being forced into an unnecessary choice:

It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life to exist. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities: (1) It’s just an accident — that is, the Universe is what it is, and we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) there is a “fine-tuner,” and what you call this “fine-tuner” is up to you, be it God or panpsychism (see my conversation last week with philosopher Philip Goff), and the Universe’s purpose is to have intelligent life; or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our Universe just happens to be the one where things work out for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you had better embrace the multiverse.

Marcelo Gleiser, “Is the Universe fine-tuned for life? Here are 3 answers,” Big Think, November 15, 2023

He proposes an alternative:

If we take a historical approach to how our current physical picture of the Universe was built, we realize that the constants of nature are measured parameters we use to create models that describe what we see. We measure the mass and charge of the electron, or the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the masses of the quarks, and then use these values in models that describe how particles and objects interact with each other. It is obvious — and rather unsurprising — that the only reason we can measure these values is because we are here.

Marcelo Gleiser, “Here are 3 answers,”

When he resorts to accusing those who offer alternatives of “astrotheology,” he seems to grasp that his own answer won’t work well either. After all, he could just as plausibly be accused of “astro-nihilism” if we can form no conclusions about the big picture based on the patterns we see.

Of course that won’t work because human beings are naturally inclined to form conclusions based on observations. The usual requirement is that the conclusions follow logically and reasonably from the observations. Gleiser can only rescue the theoretical physics of the universe by turning it into something like bookkeeping, without any consideration of the sort of enterprise for which the books are kept. That kind of work is best suited to computers, not people.

He is responding in part to his conversation a week earlier with Durham University philosophy professor Philip Goff, a champion of panpsychism. Goff’s new book, Why? The Purpose of the Universe (Oxford University Press, 2023), tackles fine-tuning from the perspective of panpsychism, not of theism. As Goff told him, “Panpsychism is the theory that consciousness goes down to the fundamental building of matter. Fundamental particles or fields have incredibly rudimentary forms of consciousness, and the complex consciousness of the human and animal brain is somehow built up from these more basic forms of consciousness.”

Goff’s approach creates huge problems for thinkers in Gleiser’s position. The usual defenders of fine-tuning are theists. But suppose, like Goff, we set theism aside and focus on the unsolved problem of consciousness. Consciousness studies seem, after all, to be degenerating into an unmitigated disaster, punctuated by straightforward politicking around a hot button issue (abortion). One outcome is that there is no evidence-based reason to reject Goff’s panpsychism at face value. And panpsychism would predict fine-tuning, just as theism would.

Worse for Gleiser, it is becoming clear that there is no evidence-based reason to reject theism as an explanation for fine-tuning either. And people are not, generally speaking, going to stop looking for an explanation.

It’s a perfect storm. But maybe some good science fiction will result.

You may also wish to read: Does the evidence for our universe’s fine-tuning mean anything? Why is a divine Mind not “scientific” if the evidence points in that direction? Philosopher Antony Flew believed that evidence matters; that is why fine-tuning turned him from atheism to deism. Can science do without an evidence base?

and

If panpsychism is now mainstream, is fine-tuning next? In his new book, panpsychist Philip Goff argues for fine-tuning of the universe and cosmic purpose. Can Goff get science gatekeepers to accept fine-tuning simply by slamming traditional religion? If he does, we will certainly know that things are changing.