Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals

Hi, Lam.I've never quite felt the force of the anthropic principle: if fundamental characteristics of the universe were different, any life that evolved within it would be different also. One assumes that different life, by necessity, would evolve senses that permit the apprehension of its different universe in order to survive. Should conditions favor the evolution of intelligence, those senses honed by survival requirements would likely enable the apprehension of a universe beyond the bounds of brute survival. The universe seems peculiarly suited to our evolution because it is the universe in which we evolved.Hello?

Thanks, cavediver. I do appreciate that fundamental part of the AP, but I still don't see the problem or feel the force If the constants were sufficiently different that life lacked necessary ingredients or adequate time to arise, there would be no life to remark upon its absence.If the constants were changed just enough to produce markedly different sorts of life, those life forms would probably also find it remarkable that the universe is so precisely what was required for their emergence.Having only one universe to observe, it is difficult to see much significance in life noticing it to be so just-so. Since we can't replay the Big Bang with tweaks, I'm also a bit leery of the assertion that no life could develop under slightly different constants, wary of limits on what forms or states life can take, and wary of accepting that the impact on life's possibility is thoroughly understood: while our own existence may be ruled out, might not the emergence of life be affected in unpredicted ways, some possibly benign?If dramatic differences in original conditions are required to create significantly different constants, one might speculate that our constants are generic universe constants. If the required differences are minute, it makes our just-so universe more striking. How little the constants need vary to preclude us seems less interesting than how much original conditions need vary to yield those changes.And I simply have no notion of how great the changes in original conditions would have to be (though I strongly intuit that I am about to learn ).Still, I've had extraordinarily good luck and extraordinarily bad luck. How probable was it that our universe be just-so? Just probable enough, apparently. I can feel extraordinarily lucky to have my companion constants without seeking any larger metaphysical or spiritual significance in my good fortune. Merely to gaze into the night-time sky fills me with as much wonder as I can contain--sometimes a little more.

Once Big Lumber cuts down all the trees, will we ask better questions?

Nice post, Tusko. Of course, for all we know our universe is riddled with life, just lousy with it. It does seem odd to debate fine-tuning when we don't even know the frequency.

Exactly. And the fellow in the video forgot to point out that--like superstition--bananas don't taste nearly as good as they once did.Of course, if he did, he'd probably argue for the delicious pre-Fall Uber-Banana as a Golden Age proof of God.When you look above all for proof that you are right, you can find it everywhere. That clip would be a wonderful classroom exercise in confirmation bias.