That makes more sense, realistically, than arguing that the universe was tweaked just for the benefit of us puny humans. The universe in all its magnificence was here long before we were.
Once upon a time, the universe was finely-tuned for trilobites. The universe was finely-tuned for trilobites for 270 million years, and then one of them sinned. Stupid bloody trilobites.
Bad trilobites. They could have been the chosen ones.
That makes more sense, realistically, than arguing that the universe was tweaked just for the benefit of us puny humans. The universe in all its magnificence was here long before we were.
I'm reading The Gods Themselves, by Isaac Asimov.
one of my favorite authors. His foundation series is unbelievable, and I think a series now?
The thought occurred to me that for all the talk about the fine-tuning of the universe, the discussion often seems to centre on the existence or not of humans who can reason about the situation.
I don't recall anyone discussing whether the universe is actually optimized for life, much less for intelligent life. (Perhaps I have simply not read widely enough - any suggestions would be most welcome.)
Do we know that there are not parameters (within or outside of the set we are aware of) that, if tweaked would not make the universe much more hospitable? If there is a god (or a recursive set of gods), is it possible that we, as human biological life, are actually being short-changed, held back from our potential?
Of course, religions that see a potential for godhood for the really special and obedient people among us claim that that is a solution. But they still have the problem of showing that their god(s) actually exist, and that we can become them. And they still don't address the super-duper parameters of the universe that the gods are holding back on.
Also, believe it or not, we are not done with Daisy - she is about to make another appearance in this thread.
I would posit that if the universe is tuned for anything, it is for the production of black holes. The universe at large is very hostile towards life and 99.99999999999999999999..... percent of the volume of the universe, inhospitable.
I would posit that if the universe is tuned for anything, it is for the production of black holes. The universe at large is very hostile towards life and 99.99999999999999999999..... percent of the volume of the universe, inhospitable.
Black holes and tardigrades!
and, (for Ceeboo - where is Ceeboo, by the way?) racoons & whales.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
I would posit that if the universe is tuned for anything, it is for the production of black holes. The universe at large is very hostile towards life and 99.99999999999999999999..... percent of the volume of the universe, inhospitable.
one of my favorite authors. His foundation series is unbelievable, and I think a series now?
The thought occurred to me that for all the talk about the fine-tuning of the universe, the discussion often seems to centre on the existence or not of humans who can reason about the situation.
I don't recall anyone discussing whether the universe is actually optimized for life, much less for intelligent life. (Perhaps I have simply not read widely enough - any suggestions would be most welcome.)
Do we know that there are not parameters (within or outside of the set we are aware of) that, if tweaked would not make the universe much more hospitable? If there is a god (or a recursive set of gods), is it possible that we, as human biological life, are actually being short-changed, held back from our potential?
Of course, religions that see a potential for godhood for the really special and obedient people among us claim that that is a solution. But they still have the problem of showing that their god(s) actually exist, and that we can become them. And they still don't address the super-duper parameters of the universe that the gods are holding back on.
Also, believe it or not, we are not done with Daisy - she is about to make another appearance in this thread.
can’t wait! Daisy has the makings of a star.
Hi Marcus,
As an aside, I've been watching the Foundation series. It changes many of the details of Asimov's books, but still manages to be an interesting story in and of itself. I've enjoyed all the Foundation books, but I like the story line of the original Robot books better. R Daneel Olivaw is still one of my favorite literary science fiction characters. If you like the Foundation books and haven't read the Robot series (Caves of Steel, I think, is the first), I highly recommend them.
It's amusing to see MG treat String Theory and Multiverses as silly, when there is zero evidence that all of these numbers and ratios he list can be tuned differently in another universe. Show me another universe with different constants, and we'll have something to talk about. It's just as theoretical as string theory and multiverses. The only difference is that MG thinks it gets him to the answer he's already chosen.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
It's amusing to see MG treat String Theory and Multiverses as silly, when there is zero evidence that all of these numbers and ratios he list can be tuned differently in another universe. Show me another universe with different constants, and we'll have something to talk about. It's just as theoretical as string theory and multiverses. The only difference is that MG thinks it gets him to the answer he's already chosen.
The American Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist with a particular disdain for religion said that life “as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Weinberg also said that if the value of the cosmological constant were different by just one part in ten to the 120th power, life could not exist.
So life as we know it only exists because of the exactness and precision of all the features of the universe beginning with the Big Bang. If you’re comfortable going the reverse engineering route that ends up saying, “It is what it is”, then fine. I think you might find quite a few smart folks out there that will take issue with String Theory and Multiverse Theory. What does that leave you if both of these theories don’t pan out?
I think I’m pretty much done with this thread but wanted to jump in and point out that the fact that life even though sentient life is an astronomically small percentage of the mass of the known universe, that really doesn’t matter. What IS important is that life IS. There is nothing that trumps the qualitative difference between sentient life and stardust.
My opinion anyway. And there isn’t any evidence to the contrary.
It's amusing to see MG treat String Theory and Multiverses as silly, when there is zero evidence that all of these numbers and ratios he list can be tuned differently in another universe. Show me another universe with different constants, and we'll have something to talk about. It's just as theoretical as string theory and multiverses. The only difference is that MG thinks it gets him to the answer he's already chosen.
The American Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist with a particular disdain for religion said that life “as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Weinberg also said that if the value of the cosmological constant were different by just one part in ten to the 120th power, life could not exist.
So life as we know it only exists because of the exactness and precision of all the features of the universe beginning with the Big Bang.
I am guessing you don’t understand what “life as we know it” means. If the “physical qualities had slightly different values” then the “life” that existed would be “slightly different” “life as we know it.” And that “slightly different” life would be perfectly matched to their “slightly different” universe. Who’d a thunk it?! What a randomly possible concept, especially given that you cannot, as RI said, show him “another universe with different constants.”
All you are doing is reinforcing the notion that your “fine tuning” argument for intelligent design is insupportable.
The American Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist with a particular disdain for religion said that life “as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Weinberg also said that if the value of the cosmological constant were different by just one part in ten to the 120th power, life could not exist.
So life as we know it only exists because of the exactness and precision of all the features of the universe beginning with the Big Bang.
I am guessing you don’t understand what “life as we know it” means.
It’s what I observe in the mirror and as I look at and interact with other sentient beings in the world around me. I think that is what Weinberg is referring to in his comments.
There is exactly as much evidence that all the numbers and ratios you list can be fine tuned as there is for string theory or multiverses. You just cherry pick the one you need to be true.
Note what Weinberg did not say. He offered no evidence that those constants could be fine tuned in that manner. Show me one, just one, other universe that has different values or ratios than ours. You can’t. Just like you can’t show me a multiverse or a string. They are all mathematical theories that we can’t test. Picking the one you think supports the answer you want to arrive at is a classic example of cherry picking.
What you seem to disdain as reverse engineering is simply working with the available evidence. If the available evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know what happened before the period of inflation in the development of the universe.” It has the benefit of being honest, humble, and evidence based. In contrast, filling the gap with a magical superbeing that just happens to be as powerful as you want it to be (can set the fundamental constants to anything it wants) and as weak as you need it to be (can’t create a world workout Yersinia Pestis) lacks those attributes.
And how arrogant to claim that life is what matters. (By which you mean human life). The known universe is fundamentally hostile to life, especially human life. If the universe were actually fine tuned, then the overwhelming evidence is that it was fine tuned for something other than human life. Fine tuned for black holes would be a much more reasonable conclusion.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Bad trilobites. They could have been the chosen ones. 
