3 ms·
The issue isn't that there couldn't be life as we know it. It is that life wouldn't have had time to evolve, e.g. the universe would disappear in far too short
by wbhart 12y ago
The issue isn't that there couldn't be life as we know it. It is that life wouldn't have had time to evolve, e.g. the universe would disappear in far too short a time or that the expansion would be so rapid that not even stars and galaxies would form. In other words, no life of any kind is even conceivably possible in those universes.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- lomnakkus 12y agoIf the constants of nature were completely arbitrary you might be right, but I don't think anyone's suggesting that they necessarily are. Some (combinations of) constants might represent underlying principles that we just haven't discovered yet. The multiverse hypothesis which the article mentions isn't really satisfactory intuitively, but these days particle physics isn't really in the realm of intuition at all. It does run into the so-called "measurement problem". (Which may have a hypothesized solution these days for all I know, I'm not even a layman.) Personally, I think the question of entropy is more interesting and fundamental. It's essentially the question "Why did the universe start with such low entropy?". Sean Carroll has quite a few talks up on "the tubes" about that question, and I find it fascinating. EDIT: Sorry about the rambling, not particularly in a state to talk about big cosmological questions at the moment. Hopefully you'll find it useful nonetheless.
- Retric 12y agoStars and galaxies are not prerequisites for life. So, sure there is probably a much larger set's of universes that can't support life than can. However, if you want to compare {universes that can support life} / {total universes} then you can't just look at carbon based life and assume that's the end all be all.