In The Privileged Planet — now out in an expanded 20th-anniversary edition — Jay Richards and I argue that an intelligent agent designed the universe for life to engage in scientific discovery. I want to compare that here with a 2020 paper by Jeffery Shainline of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. The paper is titled, “Does cosmological evolution select for technology?” He explores the idea that the fundamental parameters of our universe have been fine-tuned not just to allow for stars and life, but also to enable advanced technology. As you might gather from the title of the paper, Shainline does not argue for design as the best explanation. 

He builds on Lee Smolin’s conjecture of cosmological natural selection (CNS). Smolin stipulates that universes can undergo a form of natural selection analogous to biological evolution. In this framework, new universes are created within black holes, each with slightly different physical constants. The universes that have constants favorable for the formation of black holes would produce more offspring universes. Over time, this process would lead to a multiverse populated predominantly by universes where the physical laws are fine-tuned to maximize black hole formation, indirectly leading to conditions that support complexity and life. This is so because stars are a pathway to the formation of black holes, and stars are also required for life (to make the elements and provide steady energy to keep planets warm).

I will first summarize the paper without commentary and then offer my thoughts.

Summary of Shainline

Shainline extends Smolin’s idea by arguing that intelligent life armed with technology could create far more black holes (and thus offspring universes) than stars alone. He proposes that our universe’s parameters have been optimized through cosmological evolution to enable stars, life, and specific technologies conducive to creating black holes and maximizing cosmic reproduction. As Shainline puts it, “Stars foster life, life creates technology, and technology accomplishes cosmological reproduction.”

The paper focuses on two key technologies as examples: silicon-based semiconductors and niobium-based superconductors. Shainline argues that the physical properties making these materials uniquely suited for advanced computing and other crucial technologies are improbably convenient, potentially indicating fine-tuning through CNS.

For silicon, he highlights several “fortuitous” properties (among others):

1. Silicon has a band gap energy conveniently suited for digital computing at the temperature range of liquid water where life thrives.
2. The Si/SiO2 interface forms a nearly ideal insulating layer for transistor gates.
3. Silicon can be easily doped to modify its electrical properties.

For niobium and superconductivity, key points include:

1. Niobium becomes superconducting at a temperature conveniently above the liquefaction point of helium, enabling practical cooling.
2. Helium has unique properties making it ideal for cryogenic cooling of superconductors.
3. The physics enabling both helium’s useful properties and stellar fusion appear to be linked.

To test this idea, Shainline proposes a series of experiments to explore how tweaking fundamental parameters like the fine-structure constant and proton-to-electron mass ratio would affect the viability of these technologies alongside stars and life. The goal is to determine if our universe’s parameters fall within a narrow “sweet spot” where all these phenomena can coexist.

The proposed studies aim to identify what Shainline terms “technological coincidences” — instances where the constraints imposed by technology overlap with those required for stars or life. For example, one study would examine how changing physical parameters affects both the band gap of silicon and the properties of liquid water. Another would look at how parameter changes impact both niobium’s superconducting transition and helium’s phase transitions.

Shainline tries to argue that if these studies reveal that only a small range of parameters allows for the coexistence of stars, life, and key technologies, our universe could have been fine-tuned for technology through cosmological natural selection. He further says that this would contrast with the anthropic principle, which can explain parameter values conducive to life but not necessarily to advanced technology. (Not really, see our discussion of what the anthropic principle can explain in The Privileged Planet — sorry, I had to interject!)

He claims that certain technologies, particularly those based on semiconductors and superconductors, may be crucial for an advanced civilization to create black holes (and offspring universes) on a massive scale. He estimates that a technologically advanced civilization could potentially create orders of magnitude more black holes than are naturally produced by supernovae in a galaxy.

Shainline speculates that technologies like particle accelerators, fusion reactors, and advanced computing systems combining classical, quantum, and neuromorphic approaches may all play a role in enabling cosmic reproduction. Therefore, a universe optimized for maximum fecundity would evolve parameters allowing for these technologies alongside the conditions needed for stars and life.

Shainline’s idea does not require changes to the underlying physical or philosophical foundations of Smolin’s original idea of cosmological natural selection. It “simply” extends the concept to include selection for technology as an additional factor maximizing cosmic reproduction.

The proposed numerical experiments do not require new astrophysical observations or advances in fundamental physics. They can be carried out using established techniques in condensed matter physics and computational chemistry. This makes at least these aspects of the hypothesis testable with current scientific capabilities.

Shainline acknowledges potential criticisms of his hypothesis. For instance, one might expect a universe optimized for technology to maximize the production of key elements like silicon. However, he argues that the hypothesis predicts a balance between competing factors rather than maximization of any single element or property. The goal is to find parameters that enable the coexistence of stars, life, and diverse technologies needed for cosmic reproduction.

In the concluding paragraph Shainline states,

We should not be surprised that the conditions of the universe allow our existence, if we play a role in the life cycle. We should also not be surprised that technologies of tremendous sophistication are feasible with materials that are ubiquitous in the solar system and across the galaxy, produced by stars, if these technologies are important in the evolutionary process.

My Thoughts

First, Shainline admits that the feasibility of advanced technology needs explaining. I commend him for expressing this truth in a public setting. Jay Richards and I offer an ID explanation for this observation in The Privileged Planet. Unfortunately, Shainline does not even hint that ID is a possible explanation for the feasibility of technology. Early in the paper, he states,

Perhaps life and technology are both fortuitous consequences of physics tuned for stars, or perhaps they have been selected through the same evolutionary process. Tests described in this paper are designed to differentiate between these possibilities.

Shainline builds on Lee Smolin’s conjecture about cosmological natural selection, which has no empirical support. Although it is supposed to be inspired by Darwinism, it is quite unlike the biological scenario, which starts with something we observe: a reproducing population of organisms with some variations relevant to differential survival. We don’t know that a universe can “reproduce” by “birthing” other universes from black holes, or that those universes will have slightly different physical constants. All we know is that one universe exists — the one we observe. And the evidence strongly suggests it had a beginning. 

And, if we’re not sure that nature can make universes on its own, how do we know we can make a black hole that makes a universe? How would we make a black hole anyway? If we don’t know how to make a black hole, how do we know what specific technologies are needed for the task? I will say we do know how to grow a black hole from an initially small mass. Just feed it! This is easier said than done. How do you feed matter multiple times the Sun’s mass into a black hole?

Shainline’s idea does have a couple of advantages to the original CNS idea. First, critics of CNS have pointed out that the universe doesn’t seem optimized to make black holes; we see far fewer than CNS would predict. Shainline’s extension of CNS overcomes this objection since life with advanced technology can (supposedly) make many more black holes than natural processes would produce on their own. Second, he comes to terms with the accumulating evidence that we live in a universe fine-tuned not only for life but also for advanced technology. 

But there’s a more serious logical issue with Shainline’s idea, one reminiscent of problems that plague biological evolutionary theory. Unless intelligent life can assist in the manufacture of black holes, CNS will not select for it. Universes with life are not favored for reproduction until that life can make black holes. There is a very wide and deep chasm between a universe with the simplest form of life (say, a single-celled organism barely surviving on one planet) and life that develops the technology to make black holes. There is no reproductive advantage of a universe with life that comes close to making black holes compared to one with only single-celled life.

And since there already is a way for universes to make black holes without life, surely there are ranges of the physical parameters that can result in many more black holes without having to go through the far less probable Rube Goldberg route of making life that makes black holes. In all likelihood these black hole-friendly universes are unlikely to be life-friendly. Life does not appear to be a natural fit in Shainline’s cosmogony; it has to be shoehorned in. 

Our conclusion in The Privileged Planet is modest and based on the available evidence. In contrast, Shainline’s idea requires us to believe the following evidence-free aspects of reality: 

• Black holes birth universes with varying constants. 
• Our universe was birthed from a black hole.
• We will be able to make black holes with technology we will develop. 

He goes far beyond merely arguing that the universe is fine-tuned for technology. It is fine-tuned for us to make black holes! This seems oddly specific. There are many things life can use technology for. Shainline would have to argue that there is something about our future technology that is uniquely suited for making black holes. I think we were made for a different purpose.