Universe fine tuned?

[oscarose]

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?

[original PM]

Circular Question

Life only exists to observe the universe because the universe is structured in such a way as to allow life to evolve to observe it.

Also the constants you mention only allow life as we understand it to exist - that does not mean life could not exist under different constants - just that we have no idea how to recognise life in those 'other' universes.

[BrilloPad]

Another view is the there are an infinite number of universes out there where slightly different conditions exist.

Though I find it amusing when scientists cross into the philisophical. They should be leaving that to the religious or all science will be tainted.

IMO science explains how and religion explains the why.

[OwlHoot]

Read "The Life of the Cosmos" - Lee Smolin has a theory that universes evolve in the Multiverse to maximise the production of black holes, which spawn new universes inside.

It's quite an elaborate closely-argued construction; but I think that's the gist of it. Very interesting book, and a plausible idea, although many physicists are skeptical and he (or anyone else) will have a hell of a job proving it, seeing as we have only one universe to observe.

[oscarose]

Circular Question

Life only exists to observe the universe because the universe is structured in such a way as to allow life to evolve to observe it.

Also the constants you mention only allow life as we understand it to exist - that does not mean life could not exist under different constants - just that we have no idea how to recognise life in those 'other' universes.

I think the multiple big-bang theory is plausible, i.e. the universe expands and then collapses to create another big-bang. Therefore different big-bangs could create different constants and there could be an infinite number of big-bangs?

Maybe 1 big-bang created the conditions for life with the correct constants?

[doomage]

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.

[EternalOptimist]

fallacious reasoning.
It sounds like you have all of the possibilities, and you have eliminated all of the ones it cant be, so whatever is left MUST be the truth even without any further evidence. You have it backwards.
the correct method is to advance a theory then try to disprove it

It is that type of fallacious reasoning reasoning that led people to think that the sun revolved around the earth, all of the other possibilities that could be imagined were discounted, so the last remaining one must be true

you have to consider the possibility that there may be other possibilities

[oscarose]

Read "The Life of the Cosmos" - Lee Smolin has a theory that universes evolve in the Multiverse to maximise the production of black holes, which spawn new universes inside.

It's quite an elaborate closely-argued construction; but I think that's the gist of it. Very interesting book, and a plausible idea, although many physicists are skeptical and he (or anyone else) will have a hell of a job proving it, seeing as we have only one universe to observe.

I will have to read that book.

I watched a programme that suggested the centre of the universe is a huge black hole (unfortunately I was under the influence at the time and didn’t get the jist of it).

[SimonMac]

I prefer Bill Bryson's thinking.

[paraphrased] Intelligent life only exists due to billions of tiny mutations over millions of years of evolution, the odds of the same set of mutations being replicated in the exact same order even with an infinite number of multiverse combinations remains so small that there couldn't be other life forms out there [/paraphrased]

[Doggy Styles]

There is so much that we simply don't know. That's why there are so many theories around, with and without deities. We don't have the knowledge to prove or disprove them.

I like the Pastafarian theory myself. At least that is based 100% on known domestic science.