Will we ever understand why the universe is hospitable for our emergence?Are the laws and physical constants of the universe logically or mathematically necessary?
>>17002226Anthropic principle.
>>17002227All this does is state that we can only observe a universe that permits our existence which is obvious. It does not explain however why the universe exists with the features it has. My reading of the anthropic principle is that it implies multiverse theory, or a reality in which all possible physical outcomes can be actualised.
>>17002231If the universe happened to be some other way, we can't discount the possibility that some conscious beings would arise, even if incomprehensible to us. Those beings would, themselves, be looking at a universe that appears fine-tuned for them. In other words: you're basing your question on the probability that a particular person wins the lottery when you should be wondering about the probability that the lottery has a winner at all.
>>17002226Infinite multiverse explains it easily. The alternative is believing that only this universe exists, which is extremely arbitrary
>>17002232While we can assume that our circumstances aren't the only ways in which life can emerge, we can assume that if the constants were not even radically different, we would find ourselves in a universe consisting purely of black holes or one which would forbid any kind of complex chemistry from arising at all, which is basically what life is.
>>17002226Universe is obviously not fine tuned for us which automatically defeats all fine tuning arguments.
>>17002226The fact that I exist is more unfortunate than not, therefore it doesn't cry out for an especially purposeful explanation. It's simply bad luck emanating from an indifferent and mindless principle.
>>17002227>>17002232Ignores the fact that matter, gravity, and all non life matter like stars and galaxies also depend on the Fine Tuning and are not observers in a quantum sense. Without the fine tuning there is no universe for any life to occupy. No fusion, no stars, no nothing. Period.>>17002238Multiverse is fan fiction trash with no evidence and only retards and grifters speak of it. You're stupid.>>17002245CorrectNow to answer OP's question, logic and facts seem to dictate a single and inescapable answer that the dogmatic cult of materialists will never admit, they can't. The Universe is fine tuned because someone, or something, tuned it. There is no other conclusion that can be made given the facts we have. It's impossible it happened by randomness and multiverse is a pipe dream of literal crack heads. The Fine Tuning of The Universe is proof of a Higher Power, call it The Grand Watchmaker, call it God, call it the System Administrator of The Simulation. Call it whatever you want but it is what it is. Just like human archeologists find ancient walls and roads in long perfect straight lines and perfect right angles they rightly conclude the only explanation is it was built by an intelligence, man. Here we have the exact same logic and we must leave behind the Atheist Cult's propaganda and admit what the data points to. The Universe was made on purpose by an intelligence who has the means, motive, and opportunity to do so aka God. Watch the materialist dogs bark like retards about it but there is no other valid theory that matches the data. Please note this post doesn't pontificate on the nature or teachings of this "God" and we could always be inside a pocket universe made by a hyper intelligent alien race that by our limited vocabulary is akin to "God" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
>>17002226This is some "prove we arent the center of it" type of self masturbatory bullshit.
>>17002285Watchmakers make watches according to specific instructions/training they received, and using parts that were made by other creators.If God exists, he created the universe ex nihilo, which has never been observed before. Even if the God of our universe is an alien, the God of the alien’s universe would be assumed to exist by your same logic, and the parent universe would have to be created ex nihilo.Multiverse theory isn’t really much more of a crackpipe theory than creationism. If God wanted to prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, he can easily do so. Until he does, you can’t assume multiverse is any more crackpot than creationism.(I personally believe in God because he sent me a personal sign so obvious that it was like showing up to a function with six people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul, and they all call themselves “the Apostles” by chance. There’s no way my sign happened by chance. But I also can’t prove that to other people unless they know all the circumstances.
>>17002266If the force of electromagnetism were even slightly different, the fine structure constant was even slightly different, the mass of subatomic particles was even slightly different — you would have a universe so fundamentally opposed to life it’s almost insane. It’s not even a question that some things appear to be fine-tuned. It’s a question of whether a multiverse or God is the reason.
>>17002294>Thinking that inquiring about why the universe has specific constants is equivalent to claiming we are the reason it's thereUse your brain. While fine tuning can be used to elevate our importance, nobody in this thread has suggested that.
>>17002298If the universe were different, some creatures there would be as retarded as you and make the same claim.
>>17002300lol nevermind
>>17002298>a universe so fundamentally opposed to life it’s almost insaneUnlike our universe, which is only 99.9999999...% dead space hostile to life, in which what little life there is took billions of years of trial and error to evolve to the point where it can talk about how weird it is that we exist.
>>17002305NTA but to be fair, even one single celled organism coming into existence is still momentously unlikely, even when accounting for the apparent rarity of life
>>17002308>to be fair, even one single celled organism coming into existence is still momentously unlikelyI'm not sure in what way this is "to be fair." The reason one single celled organism coming into existence is momentously unlikely is because of how our universe is structured. If you look at the conceptual space of possible universes instead of slightly adjusting the constants in our universe to argue how unlikely life is, there are many more life-friendly universes. A common ancient belief was spontaneous generation, that life regularly popped out of the ground fully formed. In Genesis 2, God directly creates first a human and then numerous animals instead of waiting around for them to be generated by a natural process.
>>17002285If this universe exists, then it wouldn’t be ridiculous to say that other universes could also exist. So your assumption here is that the universe must exist because of God, regardless of how fine-tuned it is. But this assumes a lot about causality and the origins of universes. There’s no reason for all of existence to cohere with the patterns that your monkey brain has evolved to model for day-to-day survival on earth. So there’s as much “proof” for the multiverse as any god or gods, and we’re left not knowing for certain.
>>17002226this pic make me very kek
>>17002226Sounds like a wave concept going through nearby others from the outside on a clockwork circle of faces that can take split-out environments.
>>17002226>Will we ever understand why the universe is hospitable for our emergence?Whether or not humanity ever figures it out, what reason is there to assume they're arbitrary and don't follow from some deeper structure? We could have stopped at "it's this way b-b-because it just is, ok?" at any earlier point and we would have been wrong about it. How is this different besides the rising difficulty level?>>1700222760 IQ take. A noncognitive statement expressing the atheist's socially conditioned self-hatred.
>>17002585>they're arbitraryI mean the constants.
