View Single Post
  #49  
Old 04-19-2017, 03:58 PM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 12,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Well I've never been clear on that aspect. But if it's as you say then ISTM the multiverse doesn't really help with the issue of why all the constants in our universe appear fine-tuned. Because it just kicks it further down the road: considering the infinity of multiverses that could not harbour life, what good fortune this is the one that exists.
It's amazing that we exist in a universe that is able for us to exist and not in a universe that we can't exist in.

So there are a bajillion universes where any kind of life like us could exist. Well, we don't exist there, so speculating why we exist where we exist is like speculating why fish swim in water rather than fly through the air. (Except for flying fish - shush, don't bring up silly exceptions.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm not sure that the fine-tuning "problem" is really a problem that needs or could be solved. However, I also don't find the anthropic principle compelling either.
The fine-tuning "problem" is that we developed in a universe in which we could develop. That seems hardly something that needs explaining. Without knowing what other possibilities there are, it's meaningless to try to evaluate the likelihood that we have arisen at all. The likelihood is now 1 - we're here.

Asking why the universe exists at all is one thing. Asking why our universe is the way it is requires mostly speculation and very little actual science. It's a guessing game with no answer book to check and see who is right.

Quote:
A pretty sizeable chunk of science is investigating and understanding phenomena that human life depends on.
Now it's true that why this constant is 4.3 instead of 4.2 is a different kind of question to "How does water dissolve so many things?", say. It's a Why question vs a How question, for a start.
Maybe it's a why question instead of a how question because we don't yet have enough foundational information to make it a how question. Suppose there are some constraints that we haven't yet identified. Those would be like the chemistry rules that make water a dissolver.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The actual mechanisms for reproduction and heredity could be beyond our wildest imagination, but I think they must exist in some form. What alternative is there?
Well, proponents of the fine-tuning argument say "God", not that I think that's a scientific explanation.