Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

You say I can see where the fine tuning case implodes. You are mistaken. I don't.

There's a whole lot published on the topic of fine tuning of the universe.
A quick sampling of skeptics, debunkers and atheists like you shows they take the multiverse as the most scientifically acceptable explanation for the apparent fine-tuning. They, like you, propose the Anthropic Principle, either strong or weak, but which ultimately draws upon the multiverse. Is your chaotic and heated denial of fine tuning based on the multiverse, or something else? Just what? Can you trot out a YouTube physicist or surrogate who makes your case without reference to a multiverse?






Below, from the wiki entry on the anthropic principle:

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:[page needed]

1. The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4. Intelligent design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5. The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist". This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
7. The fake universe: We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

Omitted here is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as "fecund universes", which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they resemble our universe. Also see Gardner (2005).[39]

Clearly each of these hypotheses resolve some aspects of the puzzle, while leaving others unanswered.

 

[Danoff]

You say I can see where the fine tuning case implodes. You are mistaken. I don't.

So I will point out that the guy in the earlier video you posted (which is a good video btw, I haven't watched any of the above yet), uses the phrase "fine tuning" and I hate that phrase. The phrase suggests that the universe was designed with stability (and us) in mind, that it was tuned by a tuner, and I think it's a bad phrase. What he means by "fine tuning" is that our universe is stable and has chemistry that can support life. And I agree that it does have those things, and that based on our current understanding of physics, it's not apparent exactly why. So I have a beef with the phrase, but the concept he's using is fine.

So when I say the case for fine tuning implodes, I'm talking about the case for tailoring a universe for life. I'm not talking about the idea that a universe that supports life would seem unlikely given the number of universes that we presently think might have been equally possible. Especially if we were to roll the "dice" one time as it were.

A quick sampling of skeptics, debunkers and atheists like you shows they take the multiverse as the most scientifically acceptable explanation for the apparent fine-tuning. They, like you, propose the Anthropic Principle, either strong or weak, but which ultimately draws upon the multiverse. Is your chaotic and heated denial of fine tuning based on the multiverse, or something else? Just what? Can you trot out a YouTube physicist or surrogate who makes your case without reference to a multiverse?

I'm not sure I'd categorize my response as chaotic, heated, or a denial necessarily of the concept that you're talking about. I don't like the phrase "fine tuning". But other than that I don't deny any of what you posted in that earlier video that you posted three times.

I'm not sure why you discount the possibility of a multiverse. There's not a good reason to do so. As far as I know, we have no evidence that contradicts the possibility of a multiverse. But it also would seem a difficult thing to think is absolutely true, because evidence that such a thing exists is going to be difficult to come by.

Why do you frame this question as though I must know the answer to why our universe is the way it is? That's not something I have to know. In fact, I don't know. I don't know whether a multiverse exists, or whether there's some other explanation. For all I know, we'll eventually come up with a unifying theory of physics that explains that a universe cannot form in any other way.

Below, from the wiki entry on the anthropic principle:

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:[page needed]

1. The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4. Intelligent design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5. The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist". This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
7. The fake universe: We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

Omitted here is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as "fecund universes", which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they resemble our universe. Also see Gardner (2005).[39]

None of that seems completely impossible at first glance. Although some of them stretch credibility more than others, some of them assume a great deal more than others.

There is an arrogant tendency to assume that there is something special about a universe which is stable enough to contain ourselves. We're just another expression of stability. DNA exists precisely because a self-replicating molecule is more stable than one which is not. And we exist to house that self-replicating molecule, as expressions of stability. Humans are no fundamentally different than stars or dust cosmologically. We're expression of the physics of our universe - just like black holes and nebulae.

 

[Dotini]

I absolutely do not rule out a multiverse. No no no!
All those on the list(s) are possibilities. I think its fun to think about all of them.

 

[BobK]

The concept of fine-tuning of the universe is an old one in science. The Wikipedia entry well worth a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Yes, I'm familiar with the fine-tuning argument, but it has its flaws and too many of its proponents just try to handwave them away. For instance, a common argument is that "if fundamental constant were to change by just 1% then the universe would be impossible". That may be true insofar as it goes, but what if two or more constants were different in such a way as to compensate? Then there's the assumption that life-as-we-know-it is the only possible life.

If members can break their favorite habit of dismissal and mockery as the goal against Dotini, then maybe you can have a decent discussion.

Why is it that you take any criticism of anything you post as a personal attack?

 

[Dotini]

Why is it that you take any criticism of anything you post as a personal attack?

I was born in Texas?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You say I can see where the fine tuning case implodes. You are mistaken. I don't.

There's a whole lot published on the topic of fine tuning of the universe.

"Tuning" implies external interference in the state of an object/entity to optimise it for a pre-determined purpose. Undertaking tuning requires a degree of sentience, the ability to understand the goal (even if it's as basic as making an instrument's string sound a particular pitch), and enough understanding of the mechanism to effect changes upon it. If you follow the idea that our universe was fine-tuned by an external intelligent goal-seeker through to a conclusion then presumably that "being" (relativistic difficulties accepted) continues to watch the Universe and to extract whatever outcomes it anticipated when tuning began.

In short, God made the Universe and is watching over us now. Or are you taking a different standpoint on the meaning of fine-tuning in this case?

 

[Dotini]

"Tuning" implies external interference in the state of an object/entity to optimise it for a pre-determined purpose. Undertaking tuning requires a degree of sentience, the ability to understand the goal (even if it's as basic as making an instrument's string sound a particular pitch), and enough understanding of the mechanism to effect changes upon it. If you follow the idea that our universe was fine-tuned by an external intelligent goal-seeker through to a conclusion then presumably that "being" (relativistic difficulties accepted) continues to watch the Universe and to extract whatever outcomes it anticipated when tuning began.

In short, God made the Universe and is watching over us now. Or are you taking a different standpoint on the meaning of fine-tuning in this case?

"Fine tuning" is what the wiki, the scientists and the media invented, not me. There's a list of naturalistic causes or explanations available, of which external interference is one of several. All of the possible explanations have some explanatory merit (otherwise scientists and wiki wouldn't list them), but none is fully acceptable. It is one of the great all-time questions and should be considered ideal subject matter for this excellent thread. I'm (barely) smart enough to realize I don't have all the answers; I'm attracted like a moth to a flame by the most beautiful, and some will be lies.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Fine tuning" is what the wiki, the scientists and the media invented, not me.

I'm aware of that, I was pointing out what I see as an obvious problem with the nomenclature. As you'll see I was wondering what your standpoint on fine tuning is and what it means? After all, you threw that ball onto the court.

 

[Dotini]

I'm aware of that, I was pointing out what I see as an obvious problem with the nomenclature. As you'll see I was wondering what your standpoint on fine tuning is and what it means? After all, you threw that ball onto the court.

Sigh. It means what you interpret it to be, which is unclear and open for discussion. Some, like Fred Hoyle, have said the universe always existed. Creation in the Big Bang has more science support. This thread is entitled Creation versus Evolution, as if the ideas were in conflict. My standpoint is that creation and evolution are reconciled in the fine tuning of the Big Bang, and are no longer in conflict. Details tbd by more science.

 

[Danoff]

Sigh. It means what you interpret it to be, which is unclear and open for discussion. Some, like Fred Hoyle, have said the universe always existed. Creation in the Big Bang has more science support. This thread is entitled Creation versus Evolution, as if the ideas were in conflict. My standpoint is that creation and evolution are reconciled in the fine tuning of the Big Bang, and are no longer in conflict. Details tbd by more science.

It does depend on what is being directly created as to whether creation and evolution are in conflict with each other. The idea of the thread is that humanity was created directly, rather than the universe was created and humanity evolved. Creation of humans vs. evolution of humans. But I personally don't have any problems with discussing the nature of the universe itself here as well, since the processes are undeniably related.

So you appear to be arguing that the universe was created by a creator, rather than a natural consequence of a more fundamental truth. Is that true?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sigh. It means what you interpret it to be, which is unclear and open for discussion.

Sigh all you like love... I think I've been clear throughout similar discussions here that I believe that evolution of the universe and human kind are products of almost-infinite sequences of random chance. That's how we get to be here discussing it. If we weren't we couldn't. Je pense, donc je suis.

My standpoint is that creation and evolution are reconciled in the fine tuning of the Big Bang, and are no longer in conflict.

No, the existence of any Creation in the process makes the whole process Creation regardless of whether or not random-chance evolution is allowed within the Created construct. "Fine-tuning" in every theory that I've seen suggests a sentient, goal-seeking set of actions upon the universe. That is not Evolution.

 

[wfooshee]

My interpretation is that "tuning" requires an active monitoring of results versus expectations, which is simply not the case. Life is here as it is on this planet because the conditions were correct, here on this planet. They were not actively made to be correct by any outside master entity or man behind the curtain.

As for Evolution and Creation being in conflict or not, in actual fact they have nothing to do with each other. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever as to the origin of anything, be it the the origin of the Universe, the origin of the solar system, or the origin of life. Evolution describes the development of life into the many species, once life indeed existed.

The conflict is Creationism vs Evolution, and the thread's title would be more accurate with that term, and more reflective of the discussions when the thread started; most definitely religion versus science. Creationism is the religious belief that all life was created, as is, in situ, at the very beginning, and life is unchanged and unchangeable, and Creationists portray Science as a belief system that conflicts with them. While there may be no conflict between Creation and Evolution, there is most definitely conflict between Creationism and Evolution, with the latter being a completely faith-based, untestable set of postulates, and including willful ignorance of available evidence. "This Book says it, therefore nothing else can be true!" Well, that Book says nothing of the kind; it is not a literal play-by-play of the beginning of time, but it can well be seen as an allegory for the events at the beginning of time, more or less in sequence. Energy, day 1 (or step 1.) Matter, day 2 (step 2.) Vegetation, day 3 (step 3.) Sun, moon, and stars, i.e. the sky, day 4 (step 4, although 3 and 4 seem to be a bit out of order.) Sea life and birds, day 5, (step 5.) More creatures, creeping things, animals of the earth of every kind, and humans, day 6 (step 6.) Hmm... even in Genesis, life moves from simpler to more complex.

But going back to "tuning." There simply can be no such active process. The universe did not converge on a successful environment for life, either accidentally or by external design. I see no science showing that it did, only speculative thought experiments, with a lot of "therefores" that have no factual basis. Life emerged from an environment which was satisfactory and accommodating, not one which was specifically built for it.

We don't know what kicked life off in the first place. Not knowing doesn't mean we have to insert magic to explain it.

 

[Dotini]

So you appear to be arguing that the universe was created by a creator, rather than a natural consequence of a more fundamental truth. Is that true?

Not at all. WTF are you talking about, "a more fundamental truth"? Obviously, I don't know how the universe was created, and you don't either. Either it happened (1) accidentally, (2) some other way, i.e., purposefully on the part of aliens, gods, pure consciousness, (3) was never created and always existed without a beginning, or (4) doesn't exist at all and is merely an illusion or hologram. There's a slim possibility it's the accidental product of pure random chance in an infinity of universes, as TenEightyOne thinks. That's option #1. But if this is the only universe, its probably not accidental. But in an important sense it doesn't matter, and is not worth arguing over. And I'm to going to argue. For 80% of my life I believed #3 (Hoyle's steady state). Right now my favorite is #4. It's whatever works for you two toiling down there in ugly reality as materialists/reductionists/atheists. I've been retired for 17 years, and consider myself an aesthete seeking spiritual enlightenment in martial arts, wood carpentry and fishing. You should adhere to whatever turns you on, elevates your spirits and productivity, motivates you to go on without alienation and suicide, and satisfies your innermost prejudices, tastes or atavisms. I've said all I have to say about Creation vs. Evolution.

 

[Danoff]

Not at all.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. And since you seemed confused about where I'd get that from, here it is:

My standpoint is that creation and evolution are reconciled in the fine tuning of the Big Bang, and are no longer in conflict.

You might be able to see how I'd misunderstand.

WTF are you talking about, "a more fundamental truth"?

I simply mean that there is some understanding of the nature of the universe that we do not yet have, and which may not involve a creator.

Either it happened (1) accidentally, (2) some other way, i.e., purposefully on the part of aliens, gods, pure consciousness, (3) was never created and always existed without a beginning, or (4) doesn't exist at all and is merely an illusion or hologram.

It quite clearly had a beginning. At least, a beginning as we understand beginnings, since what we call time was created in the big bang. The big bang can be considered to be at least the origin of time, which is as quintessential a concept of a beginning as it gets. So number 3 is clearly wrong, since our universe observably has a beginning. So then, none of the above seems to allow for a (non-creation) multiverse of universes that each begin.

I'm not sure what number 1 is exactly either. I've seen lots of people put it forward, and I never really understood what is meant by that.

Here's what I do know, number 2 and number 4 require additional assumptions that don't have evidence to support them.

 

[Dotini]

Here's what I do know, number 2 and number 4 require additional assumptions that don't have evidence to support them.

You are in no position to levy requirements on anyone but yourself with regards to the creation of the universe. I can have it any way I want. Evolution, on the other hand, you can ask people to accept, no problem.

 

[Danoff]

I can have it any way I want.

Not really. You're talking about something for which there is a correct answer. You can't have the truth any way you want.

 

[Dotini]

Not really. You're talking about something for which there is a correct answer. You can't have the truth any way you want.

Oh, so you are in possession of the truth with respect to the origin of the universe?! I don't think so.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, so you are in possession of the truth with respect to the origin of the universe?! I don't think so.

Of course not. In fact I said I was not. But I do not have the ability to pick what the answer is. There is an answer, and my lack of knowledge does not give me license to create the answer.

This is fundamentally what humans have been doing since the dawn of time. When you don't know something, make something convenient up. Like for example, "I don't know what's happening in those puffy white things in the sky"... therefore "it must be where you go when you die, looks comfortable, probably sun halos, obv wings are a must".

It is common, even among scientists, to invoke god when the answers run out. Newton invoked god when faced with the n-body problem. Today grad students simulate the n-body problem as a homework assignment.

When you run out of answers, you run out of answers. You can't just fill in the truth with make-believe. If you don't know, you do not know. That means not picking your favorite substitute for truth.

 

[Dotini]

I do not have the ability to pick what the answer is. There is an answer, and my lack of knowledge does not give me license to create the answer.

You say there is an answer. So what is it?? You don't know? Is it knowable? Do you want to know? Well then, what do you do now? Is it reasonable to study the answers available that address the question? How do you choose which one to study? Do you study all? In what order? Or do you walk away from the question?

I have contributed the Wikipedia entries and several videos, from physics professors to popular debunkers, and made a real attempt to share and engage in discussion on one of the greatest of all questions. No one knows the whole truth of it. Thanks for whatever it is you have contributed. Yet life must go on without knowing the ultimate, perhaps unknowable truth. We go on seeking the truth and do not give up,

 

[Danoff]

You say there is an answer.

Necessarily.

So what is it?? You don't know?

I do not.

Is it knowable?

I'm not sure of that.

Do you want to know?

Absolutely.

Well, then, what to you do now?

Given that I'm not willing to devote my life to the study of this, probably just continue on with my life.

Is it reasonable to study the answers available that address the question?

Sure.

How do you choose which one to study? Do you study all? In what order? Or do you walk away from the question?

I'm interested in attempts to answer the question. I've read books on the subject, watched videos, read articles, spent time musing it myself. But the bottom line is that I have a life to live and the answer to the question doesn't have to (and probably won't) come in my lifetime.

I have contributed the Wikipedia entries and several videos, from physics professors to popular debunkers, and made a real attempt to share and engage in discussion on one of the greatest of all questions. No one knows the whole truth of it. Thanks for whatever it is you have contributed. Yet life must go on. without knowing the ultimate, perhaps unknowable truth. We go on seeking the truth and do not give up,

Sure, I go on seeking the truth. I do not give up, but it's also not the most important thing in my life.

Ok so none of that addresses my last post really. At no point did you justify picking an answer out of thin air and assuming it is true. This is the part that bothers me, the part where you say you can have it any way you want. You can't have reality any way you want. Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean you can decide what it is. You don't know. That's what it means to not know.

 

[Dotini]

Ok so none of that addresses my last post really. At no point did you justify picking an answer out of thin air and assuming it is true. This is the part that bothers me, the part where you say you can have it any way you want. You can't have reality any way you want. Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean you can decide what it is. You don't know. That's what it means to not know.

(You get bothered way too easily, bro. Why do you let what other people do bother you? I thought you were a libertarian, but guess not. Maybe you're from the Thought & Logic Police?)

I never said I'm free to have whatever truth or reality I want. That's postmodernism But I am free to study what I want and to have favorites or prioritize my estimate of the likelihood, and most importantly, the utility of enjoying or benefitting from one choice over another. For instance, if I prioritize a choice that emphasizes the random, accidental nature of the universe, then I'm more apt to accept the accidental and random nature of my own life and yours. If I prefer a universe that emphasizes the unique, highly non-random properties of the universe, then my view of my life and yours is correspondingly less random, more orderly, dare I say meaningful, motivating and ultimately rewarding.

 

[Danoff]

the utility of enjoying or benefitting from one choice over another

You're getting back to picking your truth here. You're not talking about study, you're talking about belief. That's the only way I see to make your post make sense.

 

[TheGeologist]

I've skimmed through this thread, and I really can't understand the argument that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Modern science strongly suggests that life is a very rare occurrence. Most places do not have the necessities to facilitate life.

That doesn't sound fine tuned to me.

 

[Imari]

I've skimmed through this thread, and I really can't understand the argument that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Modern science strongly suggests that life is a very rare occurrence. Most places do not have the necessities to facilitate life.

That doesn't sound fine tuned to me.

It's based on a number of fairly large assumptions that aren't really that reasonable.

Assuming that we understand what we deem to be fundamental constants at least mostly correctly, and assuming we understand their interactions well, and assuming that they are actually fundamental constants and that these constants could have taken any of a wide range of values with at least nominally equal probabilities, and that only this particular set of values for the constants that we observe in our universe can support life, it would then seem to be quite long odds that the universe that we ended up in happened to have fundamental constants with those values. One might then conclude that arriving at these values by pure chance is less likely than something guiding these constants toward their observed values.

Of course, entirely apart from all the assumptions just listed, it also falls foul of the anthropic principle where if there's no one in the universe to observe the constants then there's nobody to care at all if the tree falls in the forest. The reality is that fine-tuning is a cute idea that might, with a lot of extra data and explanatory theories, eventually turn out to be something like correct, but at the current state of human knowledge is more like a hideous abuse of "logical" thinking by simply handwaving a bunch of stuff that nobody really knows.

 

[TheGeologist]

One might then conclude that arriving at these values by pure chance is less likely than something guiding these constants toward their observed values.

I've never liked the argument that because all variables need to be perfect, they must have been set by an unknown force.

When the Big Bang happened, the variables for life were run in infinite locations. Obviously it doesn't pan out in most cases, the ingredients for life were not all there.

The only reason we exist is because this is one of the locations where all the variables lined up, it's a statistical thing. If they didn't, then we wouldn't be here to debate it.

Edit: and that's still awkward wording. The universe rarely sustains life. One could try to argue that Earth is "fine-tuned" for life, but certainly not the universe.

 

[zzz_pt]

I've skimmed through this thread, and I really can't understand the argument that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Modern science strongly suggests that life is a very rare occurrence. Most places do not have the necessities to facilitate life.

That doesn't sound fine tuned to me.

I'd go further and say life itself is not fine tuned for living, from a human pow at least. People die for the most stupid reasons all the time, including diseases that make the whole "fine tuning" argument fall flat on its face.

I may be in the minority but I wouldn't classify most of the time I'm alive as being great. Most of it is quite mundane.

Another reason why the fine tuning argument doesn't make sense imo, is that it is temporary. In a few billion years, there won't be people to argue about life on this planet (I don't believe humans or their descendents will be able to travel to another solar system). Then, in our final moments as a species, any argument of fine tuning, purpose, etc, will be (even more) meaningless.

 

[Imari]

The universe rarely sustains life. One could try to argue that Earth is "fine-tuned" for life, but certainly not the universe.

I don't even agree with the fine tuning argument and I feel like you're misrepresenting it.

The argument is that in this universe life is possible. Like, possible at all. The quantity and rarity within the universe doesn't come into it. With minor tweaks to fundamental constants it argues that life would not be possible anywhere in the universe. Just flat out no life, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

If you accept their assumptions, then it looks like we got lucky that the universe we happen to be in is one that has at least the basic building blocks in place to allow statistics to come into play and create places where life can come about. In that sense, yes, the universe could be fine tuned to allow life.

Again, I don't agree with the idea, but I feel like it can be defeated without turning it into a strawman.

In a few billion years, there won't be people to argue about life on this planet (I don't believe humans or their descendents will be able to travel to another solar system).

In the sense that humans will destroy themselves beforehand, or in the sense that it's a physical impossibility?

 

[TexRex]

In the sense that humans will destroy themselves beforehand, or in the sense that it's a physical impossibility?

For what it's worth, I suspect the life of the nearest star is being considered in that statement, and our supposed inability to travel to a system orbiting another one will mean that we will die when the Sun dies.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't even agree with the fine tuning argument and I feel like you're misrepresenting it.

The argument is that in this universe life is possible. Like, possible at all. The quantity and rarity within the universe doesn't come into it. With minor tweaks to fundamental constants it argues that life would not be possible anywhere in the universe. Just flat out no life, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

If you accept their assumptions, then it looks like we got lucky that the universe we happen to be in is one that has at least the basic building blocks in place to allow statistics to come into play and create places where life can come about. In that sense, yes, the universe could be fine tuned to allow life.

Again, I don't agree with the idea, but I feel like it can be defeated without turning it into a strawman.



In the sense that humans will destroy themselves beforehand, or in the sense that it's a physical impossibility?

For humans, the latter. For life such as bacteria it might be possible. But bacteria don't really argue about the fine tuning or purpose of the universe. ^^

But it's very possible we destroy ourselves before the sun engulfs us.

 

[Imari]

For humans, the latter.

Impossible at the current stage of technology obviously, but not possible at any time in the next 5 billion years before the Sun leave the main sequence? I find that implausible.

Let's assume that you have to get there within a single human lifespan, so we're not talking about arkships that are essentially little worlds unto themselves.
Let's assume that sometime in the next 5 billion years technology develops to the point where energy is no longer a restriction, either through total conversion of matter to energy or some other means (solar powered lasers and a light sail?). So we can have a ship that accelerates halfway there and then decelerates the other half, minimising trip time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration

While the time for an observer on Earth is pretty long for anywhere beyond Proxima Centauri, relativity means that the experienced time on board is much shorter. You can get to a lot of places in a single shipboard human lifetime.

Then it becomes about can you create a ship that can support humans for years. At the moment we can probably do it for a limited period of time, but a major obstacle is human psychology.
But let's also assume that in the next 5 billion years the understanding of human psychology advances to the point that we can have humans living in confined quarters for twenty years without going psychotic, and that the systems supporting them are sufficient to function safely for that period of time. If we've got an antimatter drive, we can make oxygen and food generators that self-repair. Or just take plants.

I don't think these assumptions are unwarranted given the periods of time we're talking about. Human technological history is what, maybe 100,000 years old if you count from fire and sharp rocks? Given where we are now, and how technological progress seems to be accelerating over the last few hundred years, I feel like given 50,000 times as long there's basically no problem that is absolutely unsolvable unless there are physical laws preventing it. And interstellar travel is totally possible within current physics without even getting into wacky faster-than-light drives or anything particularly controversial. Straight up acceleration with Einsteinian time dilation does the trick.

Bar a breakthrough it's not going to happen for thousands of years, but it will happen eventually if only purely from population pressure. Provided we don't kill ourselves, which is why I had the first part of the question.