Would you say the universe has the appearance of a completely natural origin? Yes you say? Well how can you say that without first demonstrating its possible for the universe to have a completely natural origin?

See how silly your argument is when it turned against you?


Where in this thread have I said the universe is fine-tuned?

You don't have to ponder about "more universes" being filled with life or not.

Simply take the universe that we know. We have only discovered such a tiny tiny percent of our universe that it is very naive to think that because "our surroundings" aren't filled with life that you have to "expect" there is no other possible way other life in our universe can exist (or that it's rare)

I actually think the other way around. We know that we exist. Thus if we exist it's very possible that other living organisms can exist, just like we do. Even more, if the universe is infinite (a possibility). There will also be an infinite amount of living organisms throughout the universe (basic math)

You can look at any random environment on earth and see it is not conducive toward the emergence of life. If it was you would see life emerging everywhere and there would be many trees of life on this planet. As it stands now only one tree of life is commonly accepted to exist on this planet.

So far our observations indicate that most environments are not conducive toward the emergence of life. There is no reason not to assume this trait of non-conducivity carries to the universal scale.

firstly, i never said life could emerge anywhere. i just said, that there is probably more kinds of life than "life as we know it". of course we don't have any direct evidence of this, but to assume that dna based life is the only kind of life possible anywhere seems limited.

life emerging is obviously a very rare event. i dont think anyone would say otherwise.

not really, only because its obvious that this universe isnt the most fine tuned. wouldnt it be easy to imagine a universe that is more conducive to the emergence of life? especially since you yourself said up there that "Most of this universe appears not to be conducive toward the emergence of life"

if i was a super-powerful fine-tuner of the universe, the whole universe would be emerging everywhere. because i'm super ****ing powerful and i'm the mother****ing fine-tuner. i'm the man.

but if we look at our universe, no evidence of a fine tuner who would do as good a job as i would. instead, we see life emerging on its own in an insignificant corner of the universe and adapting itself so well to its environment through natural selection, that some people are like



if you insist then, that this is the best an all powerful creator could do then i'm pretty disappointed in this creator. if he can't create a better universe, then i call his bluff on the whole "accept jesus or burn" bet.

if you keep looking everywhere and concluding that environments aren't conducive to the emergence of life, how do you reconcile this with your "the universe is fine tuned for life" part. this is the missing puzzle piece here.

I reckon because you keep saying "Most" , you agree with me.

Susskind doesn't say anything flat out wrong, or something that we could show is wrong right now. He may end up being wrong if later theories show that observations are more natural. The narrator makes an incorrect claim, atleast how I interpreted it, that if the cosmological constant was different by 1/10^120 that life wouldn't be possible which is just flat out wrong. Surprising because it says Martin Reese is the narrator. There may be another interpretation or something else that he meant. It is sort of tricky because the cosmological constant could possibly be fine tuned to 10^120 and if it was different life would not be possible but it could have some other fine tuned value (like exactly 2X what it is now) and life would not really have been affected.

There is more too it than emergence. Life also has to flourish...and we really shouldn't be saying "the universe is fine-tuned for life". Biological life is probably just a stepping stone to higher orders of consciousness. We should be saying "the universe is fine tuned for intelligence and consciousness."

I suspect life(in some form) and intelligence will flourish thoughout the universes.

A lot of these fine tuned constants have some play in them. So you could have a universe that is close to ours and still get life.

Thanks; that’s the bit that had me stumped. I mean how could there be any debate if that was truly correct?

How long before the trees get tuned in.

lol yes, "the universe is fine tuned for intelligence and consciousness" even though there is more living bacteria inside 1 human body than there are people on earth.

Clearly you know a lot about what you speak of. Continue please.

Trees could be part of an intelligent ecosystem. Human beings are a componet of the ecosystem and plant trees (another componet of the ecosystem) for the purpose of benefitting the whole planet(the entire ecosystem).

I don't think the idea of a an intelligent ecosystem is far fetched. It's arrogant to think humans represent the absolute peak of intelligence and consciousness. There could be orders of consciouness that we simply are incapable of understanding or reckognizing.

Good thing we are humble and capable enough of understanding and recognizing the highest and most abstract form of extra-universal intelligence. (And even knowing the inner desires of said intelligence. Hooray for humility! Boo arrogance!)

To be fair we should keep with the spirit of this thread. When we look around we notice two things -
to humans the universe appears designed.
to humans they look like the peak of I and C.

But we seem to sense greater I and C coming.

only to those who think it's already here.

Yeah but the trees don't look like they are headed towards consciousness anytime soon. So for them the tuner seems to be stuck and fined tuned on non intelligence and non consciousness. I get what your saying though.
The universe being fine tuned to crate intelligence isn't that far fetched. I just dont know it and probably never will.

Who thinks this? Who are you talking to?

I think in corporations a certain amount of corporate intelligence emerges..

So you're done trying to defend yourself on things that actually matter ITT then?

Go hide....typical

Well, so far all we have found are natural explanations, so yes.



How about...

If the value of these constants cannot be naturally explained you can't really say anything in the universe has a truely natural explaination.