The ultimate religion troll

Post Reply New Topic

How do know this so exactly? The Gravitational Constant is only known for ~+/- 10^(-5). This nothing I would call "well tuned". So it seems to be that this constant (a minority of physics even doubt it is a constant at all) can have a wide variety of values without kicking us out of existence.

Also: Almost every place in the known universe will kill us immediately. Genetic research showed that our species was about 70'000 years ago nearly extinct; like all of our closed relatives (where is the Homo Habilis, the Homo Heidelbergensis etc.?) earthquakes, famines, pests etc. killed during human history more than any war.

I would not call this "well turned".

Please. The universe is ridiculously fine tuned for life.

The only place we know is suitable for live is a ball with approx. 6300 km radius in a universe with roughly 13 Bio. lightyears diameter (ca. 1.2 10^18 m). So less than 1:10^36 is suited for life?

It is little bit that you would found an single atom of gold in the sun (and only this one, no more) and you would declare that the sun is "ridiculously fine tuned" for gold?

Interesting.

This process, whereby the primordial elements from the Big Bang are transformed into the possible building blocks of biology is a long slow business. It takes billions of years. This simple fact reveals something mysterious and important about the Universe around us. It shows us why it is so big. The Universe is expanding; the distant clusters of galaxies are receding from one another at a rate that increases with their distance apart. This means that the questions of the age and size of the Universe are inextricably linked. The fact that the Universe must be billions of years old, in order to have had enough time to produce the biological elements which make the spontaneous evolution of complexity possible, means that any life-supporting universe must be billions of light years in size. The Universe needs to be billions of light years in size in order to support just a single outpost of life. Other striking features of the observable universe follow from this simple argument. The vast age and size of a life-supporting Universe make the darkness of the night sky and the coldness of space inevitable features of such a world. The expansion necessarily lowers the density of matter and radiation in the Universe to very low levels. There is not enough energy to make the night sky bright, and galaxies and stars end up being separated by vast distances. Ironically, the fact that the Universe appears big and old, dark, cold, and lonely is a feature that is necessary for it to provide the building blocks of any form of chemical complexity.

Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”

This multiverse theory may be the only non-theistic theory, but something that cannot be proved or disproved sure as heck sounds as religion to me, they may be effectively creating a non-theistic religion! Fun.