In what sense 'right for life'? As far as we know, life can exist only in an infinitesimal fraction of just our solar system, much less the universe.
Because if the laws were slightly different then no life at all would be possible.
It may be that the alternative to something existing is impossible.
Could be that there is no other possible way for things to be. I think this is what was motivating Einstein's statement "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the World."
More likely (if some form of multiversism is true) it is the weak anthropic principle. We can only live in a universe that has laws that allow us to exist. So in all the many multiverses where the laws aren't like that, there isn't anyone to ask the question. And if you can ask the question, then necessarily you must live an a universe that allows for life.
I think I pretty much agree.
You don't need a multiverse for that. The laws of physics could have been different even 10,000 years ago. Some creationists argue that.
Alot of creationists don't understand science. We can see into the past by looking at light from stars. I'd think scientists would have seen if there had been major changes.
They could be different in other parts of this universe. You haven't visited the Andromeda Galaxy, have you?
No but we can look at it. I know scientists have suggested that far beyond what we can see there might be different physical constants.
Sure, maybe there might not be a multi-verse. I'm really trying to argue that the multi-verse IS real.
Besides, we think of life needing stuff like water and carbon because that's all we know, but there's no real reason to think that. Science tells me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and I'd probably bet the farm that they're right, but there's no actual guanatee.
Well if you understand water and carbon, you will see why it might be harder for life to evolve based on anything else. Maybe it is possible, but it seems less likely. It isn't simply because we are based on water and carbon.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. You mean "life" versus "things"?
No, I mean, you seemed to be asking why anything exists. The fine-tuning argument is different from that. The fine-tuning argument is about the laws of existence, not why the universe exists exists.
I don't understand string theory, but obvious questions pop up: "what are the strings made of, why are they real, and what is their nature"?
Sure, I said such theories could be questioned in the first post.
Well maybe it's not a double negative, I'm confused now. I should stay out of the Philosophy forum.
But, to say there's no reason to think my calculator is not somewhere specific is the same as saying "I think nothing." The classic atheist position. To some degree, I respect the position, it's honest, but I think something different.
Well I don't think it is the same as saying 'I think nothing'. To be honest I'm finding it hard to know what the first phrasing means anyway.
Atheists do tend to say we don't know where the universe came from though. There isn't the evidence to make a strong claim.
I personally think Lee Smolin's approach is more realistic. And no, since I'm not a physicist, I'm not going to summarize and defend Smolin's approach to all of this.
After googling it, something about universes being born from black holes? Fair enough, I'm not going to ask you to defend it.
I've never found much sense in that line of reasoning. I'll leave it for the physicists to wrestle with that one, but my impression is that virtual particles come into existence within the context of spacetime, not out of a pure, philosophical nothingness, so I'm not convinced that is any kind of explanation.
I wasn't thinking of virtual particles.
I´m having problems understanding the feeling that this is a question that needs to be answered. Why would one expect there to be nothing (and why would we assume "there is nothing" to be the default state - while it actually isn´t even a state) , in the first place.
'Nothing' seems to be simpler, and doesn't need it's properties explained. Even if nothing seems just a probable as something, I'd still think it makes sense to ask, even if the answer is that the question doesn't make sense considering our understanding of the basic structure of existence.
Secondly, if for a moment I am accepting the premise that "there is nothing" is the default state from which "there is something" needs to be explained as an alteration, no answer can be had: The question asks for (and thereby presupposes the existence of) something that is responsible for the alteration.
I don't imagine there was nothing and then something existed. So I'm not looking for something to cause a change. I suppose I want an explanation for why existence is just as simple and basic as nothing.
