> > There seem to be three possible answers to this question:
> >
> > (a) It is a complete chance.
>
> Randy: This answer doesn't seem very scientific to me since the probability of
> this being coincidental is so vanishingly small.
>
> How do you know ?
Randy: I thought this was a straightforward probability calculation unless I'm
missing something. According to what I've read, one of these
fine-tuned physical constants is the mass-ratio of certain sub-atomic
particles. Let's say, as an example, that there are 10,000 possible values
of this ratio. Only one of these values will allow life to develop in the
universe. Therefore the chances of this ratio just randomly being correct
is one in ten thousand. This is why random chance doesn't seem to me to be
a very scientific explanation of these phenomena.
But are you correct that there is only one value which would allow life to develop ?
Pim: How many universes are there which could sustain life as we know it ? How many universes are there which could sustain
life ?
Randy: I only know of one universe. And as far as I know scientific research
hasn't indicated the existence of any other universes. This is why I asked
Kevin in another post if it's truly scientific to theorize the existence
of another universe for which we have no measurements to explain data
which we have measured.
Of course we only know of one universe but that does not mean that we know how many of the possible universes could sustain life, even if ours is the only one.
>
> > (b) God regards me as such a desirable product of the universe
> > that he has fine-tuned it so as to guarantee my development.
>
> Randy: This seems like the best answer to me, although I don't know if it's the
> best scientific answer.
>
> And what if any universe could potentially hold life ?
>
Randy: Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement it is not the case that any
universe could potentially hold life. Only a universe in which certain
physical constants have very specific values can hold life. Therefore, the
fact that our universe has this specific set of these physical constants
seems to indicate that our universe is special, non-random, and perhaps
designed for the very purpose of supporting life.
Perhaps but we do not know if your assumption is correct that "only a universe in which the constants have a specific value can hold life". Perhaps life as we know it right now can only exist in a subset of possible universes but why are we assuming that we are unique forms of life ?
>
> > (c) There exist other, disjoint, universes with other laws
> > and constants of nature.
>
> Randy: This answer also seems unscientific since there is no evidence(as far as
> I know) for the existence of these other universes.
>
> Nor is there evidence of a small chance or a God.
Randy: But it seems to me that the fine-tuning of these physical constants IS
evidence for the existence of God(I certainly believe that there are other
evidences as well).
Not necessarily, it could also be that our life form is adapted to the universe and we merely marvel at the 'coincidence' which in fact isn't ? Like some animals appear marvelously adapted at some tasks.
Randy: I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean when you say "nor is there
evidence of a small chance".
Because we do not know how many variations of the constants could lead to a universe with 'life'.
>
> So perhaps chance is still the best one ? We are here because the universe allowed us to be here.
>
Randy: Certainly this is true but I wouldn't expect scientific curiosity to end
there but to ask "Why are these physical constants so well fine-tuned?"
Perhaps they aren't ? They are perhaps one of billions of possibilities and allowed the form of life we presently know to evolve ? What we perceive as fine-tuned is perhaps not the constants but life ?