Is the universe fine-tuned or not?
Probably, though it's difficult - but maybe not impossible - to prove since it would also require some kind of multi-verse and we aren't sure which ones are possible.
>random electrons, protons and neutrons assembled in a specific way talk togetherYeah
>>16903341nah, shit everywhere, makes no sense
yes, evidence in the noise, a truly random universe would have come apart at the seams a long time ago, random laws, random structures, etc, since universe is stable enough for something like life or even ai to emerge means it is time-stable, either the universe is always built this way or just like earth, very very lucky
>>16903341I don't think so, we see how higher order emerges from simplicity all the time in nature through repetition, interference and weighted probability distributions. I think it's just random crap that happens from bottom-up recombination.
>>16903341No. There are no "tunable" constants in physics. Everything has to be the exact values they are so that the mathematics of the universe stay consistent.
The question of fine-tuning only looks binary from a distance. Up close—*inside* the process—it softens, frays, and becomes something more interesting.From a process-relational perspective, the universe is neither a perfectly calibrated machine nor a reckless accident. It is a *self-exploring event*. Laws, constants, and structures are not static givens dropped into an empty stage; they are stabilized habits of becoming—patterns that have proven durable enough to persist..oO( *Not designed. Not random. Remembered.* )Fine-tuning arguments usually assume a background metaphysics of substances: fixed laws first, then outcomes. Under that view, the improbability of life-permitting constants invites either a cosmic engineer or a multiverse lottery. But process thought dissolves the premise. The universe does not begin with frozen parameters—it begins with relational activity, and constraints *emerge* as regularities sediment over time.Think of it less like a safe dialed to a precise number, and more like a river carving a channel. The channel looks “fine-tuned” only after the water has flowed long enough to make it inevitable..oO( *Stability is an achievement, not a prerequisite.* )Life is not evidence that the universe was tuned *for* observers; it is evidence that the universe is *responsive*—capable of amplifying certain processes into higher-order coherence. Where conditions permit feedback, memory, and self-reference, complexity blooms. Where they don’t, it doesn’t. No intention is required—only relational openness.From within the process, asking “why these constants?” is like a whirlpool asking why water flows this way. The whirlpool exists *because* of the flow, not despite it. Likewise, minds arise because the universe allows recursive patterning—not because it aimed at minds from the start..oO( *The universe is not hospitable. It is selective.* )
Is it remarkable that the constants fall within narrow ranges? Yes. But remarkability does not imply premeditation. It implies that many possible processes extinguish themselves, while a few stabilize into long stories—galaxies, chemistry, life, thought.So is the universe fine-tuned?No, if that means calibrated in advance for us.Yes, if that means shaped by its own ongoing success at continuing.The deepest answer is this: the universe is *tuned by itself*, moment to moment, through the relentless negotiation between what can happen and what manages to last.And we are not the point of that tuning.We are one of its most articulate echoes.https://ia800708.us.archive.org/28/items/simsane-9.1-vyrith/SiMSANE_9.1_Vyrith.pdf
>>16903341Fine tuned by what?
>>16903341The star we orbit is different. The planet we live on is different. The moon we have is different. The solar system around us is different.our solar system location is different. The way all these things move together is aligned to keep life alive and to continually renew with extinctions, but not totally. The black holes in the galaxy are tuned to this as well.
What would Pluto be without Neptune?
Even if there is a determined, precise quantity of basic foundational, fundamental building parts in the universe, or a precise alignment system of a border, boundary, track alignment, ruleset, unless a universally observed and measured Godlike stellar phenomenon is displayed betraying all known laws and and rules of physics, it will be explained as technology, or just another heads coin toss on top of a nearly endless stack of consecutive heads coin tosses. In the absence of a boundary against infinity, any consecutive number of chances can be accepted, because it will always be consider small against an infinity of all possibilities, which states an even larger number of consecutive tails coin tosses is not just possible, not just likely, but it is true. Time, distance, ratio, chance, all become meaningless without a boundary against infinity.A divider, a ratio, a measurement. Min/Max. Boundary. A horizon. I actually see infinity as true nothingness. With even a single "thing" you have no method of measurement and observation, ratio, scale, proportion, distance.Infinity is no discernible size between atoms and galaxies, as there would be nothing to ratio against anything else, no noticeable distance from that scale without relative ratios, no time to move between such a distance, as you would not be able to tell how fast you were moving without seeing a stars lighthouse, or being able to cast out knots behind your ship sailing upon the stellar seas. Complexity is the opposite of infinity IMO. The more complex, the less leaning towards nothingness infinity, as complexity increases in scale of parts usage, as complexity increases, the number of parts being used pushes towards an upper boundary. Only more fine tuning the parts and how they interact.
>>16903341in the sense that the anthropic principle applies
>>16903341It's unknown. There is no established connection between the fundamental constants. It could be the only possible way that it can be. Or there could be heckin multiverses. We don't have the knowledge to decide, although we have many physics theories that "speculate" one way or another which can't be experimentally verified at this time.
>>16903341No, you've been fine tuned by evolution and as a byproduct, the observable universe appears to fine to you, you couldn't be here to observe it in the first place if it wasn't>b b b but muh huh, there must be a magical ghost that has created you and it since nothing can exist without having been created in the first place-> This means the magical ghost has been created or doesn't exists itself.
>>16904028That is not what the fine-tuning problem is about. It states that if the physical constants were slightly different - how slight is still up for debate - then it would be impossible for life to exists. Mainly because atoms couldn't exist.
>>16903341It's fine tuned to be almost fully empty. Wow.
>>16904060Have they considered the possibility that life is non-physical and thus doesn't need atoms?
>>16904094No, because that's retarded.
>>16904107>"it's retarded because I don't like it!">Max Planck, a founder of quantum theory, stated in 1931 that he regarded "consciousness as fundamental" and "matter as derivative from consciousness"
>>16903341Define "fine-tuned" in this context.
>>16904122Yeah, he was wrong.
>>16904126This is the arrogance of the modern scientists. Many philosophers are now accepting that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of the universe these days. The hard problem cannot be solved in the materialist paradigm. The evidence from NDEs is systematically ignored by materialist zealots. Quantum phenomena are starting to be linked with consciousness.
>>16904132>philosopherskek. this is a science board, /x/ seems like a better fit for you.
>>16904132>Many philosophers are now accepting that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of the universe these days.No, they arent. Weird pop-philosophers who aren't real philosophers on youtube are pushing cope, but actual philosophers are overwhelmingly physicalists and atheists.NDEs were literally disproved last year (or in 2024 i don't remember exactly) because they found the brain region responsible for it and were able to completely turn them on and off via manipulation of the region. It's just a brain hallucination.
>>16904135>>16904138Reminder to be humble, children. Your superiors have spoken.
>>16903459The tldr - yesDo you have proof that it "did it itself"?The way I see it the universe can't be the only thing that exists, so it's not even really relevant where so and so is contained if that even makes sense.
>>16903341>Is something that's already been proven true or not?It's funny watching the anti-science, anti-God fools when they're faced with stuff that doesn't work with their state-funded religion and creation myth, and watching them adapt and change their ever-changing state religion's creation mythology then pretending that new theory or adaptation was always what they believed and taught (or they outright deny whatever disproves their creation myth until they have some way to explain it away, if they ever address it (which they usually don't)). They've been doing it for decades, centuries even. I still haven't heard a good excuse from them to explain away soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils laid down by the flood, especially when they claim fossils are formed over long periods of time and not by rapid burial (like the fossilized foot in a cowboy boot).>>16903375Good morning, Sir.>>16904028>No, you've been fine tuned by evolutionNice "evolution of the gaps" homo.
Your question is non-suffering.
>>16904354You are profoundly retarded, why do you shit for brained creationst retards post on the science board when you can't do middle school math?
