34student

I don't care about the medium; I care about the content and the source.

I just watched another Closer to the Truth about the fine-tuned universe. In this one, Robert interviews Michio Kaku. In the beginning, Michio only present 2 options as an explanation of a fine-tuned universe, God or Multiverse 2:55. He doesn't even seem to want acknowledge the option that I am currently stuck on, but believe it nonetheless. Then at 4:00, Robert does bring that option. But they dismiss it quickly as Robert says that it is "less and less like as an alternative". But I don't understand why it is less and less likely. Further more, Michio uses terms like "significant" and "special" to describe the universe. I just do not understand this line of thinking. Then you just haven't looked into this subject close enough.

Let me explain it this way. Scientists believe we have only one of the three choices I mentioned earlier: God, multiverse and the universe is not fine-tuned. For me, and others on this thread, there is a very obvious - too obvious - 4th option. The 4th option is that the universe is fine-tuned for life, so what. I am trying to understand why they don't think this is an option.

But with so many variables that the universe has, then it should not be surprising that some of these variables are less likely. I could understand there being a problem if all posible variables were unlikely or something like that.

Yes I agree in the order of events. Lambda happened, then 14 billion years later you wanted to give me an example of something that our universe has that most of the others don't. Then you chose lambda. These are the order of events.

Yes you did. You chose the variable lambda to compare us to other universes.

But you chose the unlikely variable. It may be an important or interesting variable to choose for humans, but it is not important or interesting objectively.

But you have chosen something in our universe that is unlikely. You could have chosen something about our universe that is likely. Then wouldn't they cancel each other out?

I *think* it has to do with the universe existing the way that it does is too improbable. Alan, and many others, think we need to resort to a multiverse so that there can exist the more probable universes too. But it would seem to me that any universe had an equally likelihood of existing, given the randomness of initial conditions at the big bang - I think.

In the video you posted, right off the bat Robert presents Alan with 3 explanations about how the universe is so fine-tuned and Alan agrees with him. The 3 choices are God, multiverse and the universe is not so fine-tuned. An option that makes sense to me is that the universe we have just so happen to have life in it. But clearly this is not a good option. So, I know I am missing something, something that must be so obvious that they do not even need to mention it.

Here is a quote from Robert Lawrence Kuhn (a neuroscientist himself) who investigates mysteries in science, "How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Beware: there is more than one answer lurking here. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Steven Weinberg, David Gross, John Polkinghorne, Robin Collins, and Paul Davies.". Here is the video link if you are interested,

I meant: why is it even considered by scientists as an issue. I am where you are in that it is too anthropocentric like you say. But it seems very hard to know their side of the argument. That is what I want to know. There are many very smart scientists that are submerged in this topic and they believe that there is a problem/issue that needs to be solved. I wish I knew what their issue is with a universe that seems to be fine-tuned for life. Yeah this is where I am at with all of this in that it is just a type of universe that just so happens to have life in it, so what. But there seems to be another side of this view; I hope to learn what it is.

I don't understand in what sense there is an issue here.

But aren't we assuming that length contraction is not just an illusion? In that case, when you and I say "see it in a different position" doesn't this really mean, "is in a different position"? I do not know what context you are referring to because you cut out only "length contraction". Relativity says that length contraction is not just an illusion. So when a sufficiently fast particle turns Earth into a pancake, then I have to figure that this changes the structure of the universe from what it would have been if there were no such frame of reference from the particle. Yes, but the outcomes are the same. The outcomes are not the same in the muon evidence of length contraction. Something different happens because of the length contraction than if there were no length contraction, specifically the impact on the Earth's surface vs not impacting it without length contraction.

I tried to explain in the following sentences. But the different shape from length contraction causes the muon to interact with the universe in a different way than if there were no length contraction. Of course the structure of the universe has changed because of length contraction. You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Your argument about the relativity of kinetic energy of the train is not the same as the relativity of the difference in shape from a length contraction (keep reading because I am about to explain why.). The length contraction from muon's frame of reference actually causes something different to happen, such as impacting the Earth's surface when it should have decayed before making it to the surface. The change in shape actually causes something different to happen than if there were no length contraction from the muon's frame of reference. But with the kinetic energy of the train versus no kinetic energy from the passengers' point of view, nothing different will happen. An object in the train's path is still going to get struck, etc.