Universe fine tuned?

[SupremeSpod]

Recently, I’ve been questioning the origin of life and the universe and becoming rather unsettled. Following a lot of reading, I’m started to doubt my scientific roots and cynical view of religion and coming round a little to the idea that indeed there could have been a ‘creator’ because universal constants are so precise and very small deviations would have made the creation of life impossible.

Below is a summary:-

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.”

Any thoughts?

Sounds like you're approaching your mid-life crisis.

You're either going to "top" yourself, have an affair or buy a sportscar.

[alluvial]

That seems as self-referential an argument as the religious use though. That's just:

Q)Why is the universe here like this
A)Because it is

Yeah, I guess it can be seen like that. But if it wasn't like this, then it wouldn't be this universe. Because the fundamental laws of physics are the way they are, then the universe has to be the way it is. This doesn't mean that the Earth and us had to come into being because of it, but that the way the universe is built made it possible.

I suppose this is as circular an argument as the god-centric viewpoint. Unfortunately I did maths and physics in college and fell asleep in the compulsory more philosophical stuff that was supposed to get us scientists to think outside of our fields. Perhaps if I'd stayed awake I would make more sense.

[oscarose]

If you don't understand the difference between the universe and the milky way, you shouldn't be in this discussion

Technicalities

In another book I read, it’s suggested we only know 4% of the makeup of the universe (again I was slightly intoxicated and can’t remember the fine detail). But it does illustrate how little we know.

[Doggy Styles]

Technicalities

In another book I read, it’s suggested we only know 4% of the makeup of the universe (again I was slightly intoxicated and can’t remember the fine detail). But it does illustrate how little we know.

Do you ever read books while you are sober?

[oscarose]

Do you ever read books while you are sober?

Rarely, an interesting book together with a good wine is perfect relaxation (being at a cricket match is a bonus).

Here is the book in question:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-4-Percen...7606495&sr=1-1

[NotAllThere]

Richard Dawkins covers this pretty well in one of his books. It's a question of probabilities.

So these "conditions for life" seem impossible unless you accept that the universe is so vast, so incredibly vast, that they are in fact possible.

What's odd, is that in the editorial of a recent New Scientist, they quoted Dawkins as saying that evolution is the end result of a staggering number of improbable events. Yet he still believes evolution is true*

I look at the amazing fine-tunedness of the universe and think - wow, that's neat. Then get on with my life. I'm a firm believer in the special anthropomorphic principle, that the universe was created especially tailored for me. You lot just get it as a fringe benefit.

btw - the current scientific consensus is that there must have been a single point at which the universe began. The multiverse, evolving universe etc. theories have apparently deep problems associated with them. All the evidence points to the big bang really being the start of everything.



* for a given value of true

[NotAllThere]

Sounds like you're approaching your mid-life crisis.

You're either going to "top" yourself, or have an affair and buy a sportscar paid for by stealing from your clients.

FTFY

[oscarose]

All the evidence points to the big bang really being the start of everything.

I favour multiple big-bangs.

[OwlHoot]

btw - the current scientific consensus is that there must have been a single point at which the universe began. The multiverse, evolving universe etc. theories have apparently deep problems associated with them. All the evidence points to the big bang really being the start of everything.

That's not true - There's no consensus, just differences in taste and wishful thinking one way or the other.

[NotAllThere]

That's not true - There's no consensus, just differences in taste and wishful thinking one way or the other.

No really. It is true. If you don't believe me, get a subscription to NS, then read through the relevant articles published this year. The theories which try to get away from a single point of "creation" don't work.