4 ms·

The SAP states that the values of the constants of the laws of physics are so fantastically, improbably finely tuned to allow the existence of matter and life,

by GavinB 16y ago

The SAP states that the values of the constants of the laws of physics are so fantastically, improbably finely tuned to allow the existence of matter and life, that it seems highly likely that these values were predesigned. Even if you accept this (and it’s worth noting that only the tiniest sliver of our universe is hospitable to our kind of intelligent life), it just pushes the question back one level. If our universe was created, then whoever created it must have also grown up in a universe that could spawn intelligent life. Would that universe need to have had its variables tuned as well? This is just a repackaging of a standard argument that adds complexity while explaining nothing.

ZoFreX 16y ago
> You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing! -- Richard Feynman
- srbloom 16y ago
  The best kind of quote- entertaining and instructive.
arethuza 16y ago
That sounds a bit like Lee Smolin's idea about natural selection at the cosmological level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
It's actually much worse than that. Not only would whatever created it have to live in a universe that allowed some form of intelligence - which is unsatisfying, but not all that much worse than "big bangs happen"; not only does it need a creator, it needs a creator with a universe that is computationally far more powerful than our own. After all, the only way in which we can simulate physical phenomena well is by actually running the experiment. Sure, computer software is very helpful when building a plane, but we still need wind tunnels. I'm convinced that we will create more powerful computers, but I'm not aware of any claims that a particle can be used to accurately simulate two particles... or even one millionth of a particle. (Note that reality doesn't seem to have accumulated any rounding errors even after running for a couple billion of years.)

by GavinB 16y ago

ZoFreX 16y ago

> You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing! -- Richard Feynman

srbloom 16y ago
The best kind of quote- entertaining and instructive.

arethuza 16y ago

That sounds a bit like Lee Smolin's idea about natural selection at the cosmological level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

It's actually much worse than that. Not only would whatever created it have to live in a universe that allowed some form of intelligence - which is unsatisfying, but not all that much worse than "big bangs happen"; not only does it need a creator, it needs a creator with a universe that is computationally far more powerful than our own. After all, the only way in which we can simulate physical phenomena well is by actually running the experiment. Sure, computer software is very helpful when building a plane, but we still need wind tunnels. I'm convinced that we will create more powerful computers, but I'm not aware of any claims that a particle can be used to accurately simulate two particles... or even one millionth of a particle. (Note that reality doesn't seem to have accumulated any rounding errors even after running for a couple billion of years.)