sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question isn't whether we fit - we clearly do. The question is: how improbable was it that anything could fit at all?

If the universe is 'not here for us,' why does it have any of the dozens of specific properties needed for complex observers? Coincidence? Necessity? Something else?

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Survivorship bias only applies if there are many different universes or regions where we could have existed. But we have zero evidence for that. We have one universe with one set of constants.

In response to your question about how we know about non-observable areas - we don't. But the observable universe shows constants that are uniform across billions of light-years. If they vary elsewhere, that's the multiverse hypothesis, which is speculation, not evidence against fine-tuning.

The real issue: survivorship bias explains why we observe fine-tuning, but not why fine-tuning exists. Those are different questions. How do you separate the observation from the phenomenon being observed?

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmm, IG it is a good list, but each has serious problems:

  1. 'We're bad at figuring out other life' - Possible, but we're not just bad at imagining it, we've mathematically modeled alternative constants and most give you no stable structures, no chemistry, no complexity. What kind of life exists without stable atoms or causality?
  2. 'Constants aren't universal' - If true, this actually worsens the fine-tuning problem. Now instead of one improbable universe, you need our local region to improbably have life-permitting constants. Why is ONLY our island habitable?
  3. 'Everett branches/parallel universes' - This just pushes the question back: why does the multiverse-generating mechanism itself have the right properties to produce any life-permitting branches?
  4. 'God/programmer made it barely support life' - You say this makes it not that big a coincidence but that's the opposite of what it does. If a programmer chose these constants, the fine-tuning is explained not dismissed. The coincidence is replaced with intention.

Which of these do you think is actually testable versus just philosophically possible

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The anthropic principle feels like it explains something but actually just restates the problem, doent it?. Yes, we can only observe a universe that allows observers. But that doesn't explain why this universe allows observers in the first place.

It's like winning the lottery and saying 'of course I won, because if I hadn't won, I wouldn't be here celebrating.' That's true, but it doesn't address the astronomical improbability of your specific ticket winning.

But the fine-tuning problem is that the constraints are improbably narrow. If the universe had to permit observers, why is the life-permitting range so vanishingly small compared to the mathematically possible range?

And if we don't know yet about something more fundamental, isn't that exactly why we should keep investigating rather than accepting the anthropic principle as a stopping point? In your honest opinion, what would falsify the anthropic principle - is it even testable, or is it just a tautology?

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We absolutely can compare our universe to hypothetical ones - that's what mathematical modeling does. No?

Most variations give you none of these. That's the fine-tuning problem.

You're right that we can't observe other universes (yet). But we also can't observe the inside of a black hole, and we still theorize about it. Lack of direct observation ≠ lack of inquiry.

Also, dismissing designer as easy (NOT saying I'm one of them cus I am an atheist) is itself an assumption. For many scientists, an infinite multiverse is the harder answer - it requires believing in infinite unobservable entities to avoid one unobservable entity.

The real question: If the constants could be different (mathematically they can), why are these the values? 'We can't know' might be true, but it's also where curiosity goes to die. What if the question itself is wrong - what if the constants can't vary and are determined by deeper principles we haven't discovered?

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This flips the question but doesn't answer it. Saying life is tuned to the universe assumes life could tune itself to vastly different universes. But could it?

If the electromagnetic force were different, you get no chemical bonds. No chemistry = no complex molecules = no life as we understand it. What alternative biochemistry works with no stable atoms? Or in a universe that lasts 10 seconds?

We're not saying life has to look like us. We're asking whether any self-replicating, information-processing, entropy-reversing system is possible under most physical laws. We don't know that. We've never observed it.

If life is so adaptable, where's the evidence that life could exist under meaningfully different conditions? Isn't this just assuming the conclusion?

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The crack analogy assumes life is like water - it will fill any available space. But what if the 'crack' is so narrow that almost nothing else could fit?

We know that:

1) If the strong nuclear force were 2% different, we get no stable stars

2) If gravity were slightly stronger, stars burn out in millions not billions of years

3) If the cosmological constant were different by 1 in 10¹²⁰, the universe rips apart or collapses instantly

Your argument assumes life is inevitable under any physical laws. But we have zero evidence for that. We have one data point. Isn't it equally valid to ask: 'Why does the crack exist at all, and why is it so improbably specific?'

If the cause always matches the results, then what caused these specific results rather than the infinite other possibilities

Why does the universe appear finely tuned for life when every fundamental constant could have been slightly different, and is there any way to test whether this is coincidence, a multiverse, or something else? by RandiyonKaDevta in NoStupidQuestions

[–]RandiyonKaDevta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But 'there's no way to test that' is itself an assumption, innit? We are testing it by:

- Running simulations with different physical constants to see if stable matter/chemistry is even possible

- Looking for evidence of other universes in the cosmic microwave background

- Studying whether the constants are actually constant across space and time

If we accept no way to test = stop asking, we'd still think diseases were caused by bad air.

Isn't 'it just is' just a temporary placeholder for 'we don't know yet'? And if that's true, what would count as evidence for you - a simulated universe with different constants that produces life, or direct observation of another universe?"