Apparently the physical constants of our universe are precisely calibrated so as to make life possible: it’s spooky. The Anthropic Principle resolves that: it says that observers can only exist in universes that can create observers. From there, Paul Davies in The Goldilocks Enigma outlines 7 possible characterizations of our universe.
My comments:
#1 might be called The Absurdly Coincidental Universe.
Wiki mentions Lee Smolin’s model of cosmological natural selection, which seems like an offshoot of #3, the multiverse.
4a. The universe could have been created by a committee, an organization or a team.
5a. Consciousness is ubiquitous, what is rarer is consciousnesses that can effectively communicate with humans. For example consciousness may be part of rocks, trees, stars, furniture, digestive tracts, whatever. So most parameter sets are likely to create observers.
5b. Ok, ok, consciousness isn’t ubiquitous, but it is embedded in objects where we wouldn’t expect it. So it can be supported in many universes: we simply don’t understand it well enough at present. [1]
#6: I don’t understand that.
#7 shares some similarities with #4. We could live in the Creator’s fake universe: for example He may live in a meaningfully 23 dimensional one.
There is also #8: your premise is fundamentally confused.
This really isn’t my area. How coincidental are these fundamental constants, on their face? Is this a case of a single narrow range, or lots of narrow ranges? How small do the odds appear to be? I suspect somebody here can rule out #1 and #8.
A fake universe is a real possibility. Some argue that computer power will keep advancing until we can simulate fully immersible worlds in a computer. And if that’s the case, there will be many simulations and the odds of this reality being the original one becomes vanishingly small. We discussed this on the board a few years ago: it’s the Matrix scenario. The main critique is that our current universe has too high a resolution to be virtual. But if the master universe has many dimensions, then our 3+1 universe is pretty simple, as per #4, Creationism.
I can’t rule out #2, The Theory of Everything, but it has the feel of conjecture at present. Further research is necessary. Perhaps somebody can defend it here, as well as variants of #5 that do not imply easily generated consciousnesses. Others might explain #6. What remains are #3 and #4, my preferred choices.
Side question regarding the Anthropic Principle: can dogs observe the universe? I think the answer is no in this context, as the Anthropic Principle involves the capability of observing these fundamental physical constants and wondering about them.
[1] Though we can define it! “Consciousness are thought processes that we are aware of”, or more generally consciousness is self-aware thought processes, in the broad sense. h/t Der Trihs.