I don't even buy the argument that most possible universes will collapse. How do we know that? Heck, we know the faintest bit about the dark matter that apparently comprises the vast majority of matter in our universe and the strings that allegedly help hold it together, and someone's saying that we know that most universes will collapse?

But again, even if we assume that most universes will collapse, it could still be the case that ANY universe that doesn't end up collapsing will have pockets hospitable to life, i.e., that once you roll 7 or 11 on the first dice throw, you get to collect. That hardly suggests fine tuning.

This is ALL speculation. Might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

.

If any of you are interested in actual scientific papers about this topic before you form your concluding guess, you might want to get a copy of:
Universe or Multiverse? by Bernard Carr

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Multi...5894993&sr=1-2

Included is a 2006 paper by Hawking and many other interesting papers.

My concluding guess? Tuned and no religious significance.

I don't think you're getting enough attention - an excellent question in my view.

I find speculations like the kind in this thread to be meaningless until we have a better understanding of any constraints on the fundamental constants. At the moment it appears there are, what a dozen? Maybe they all rely on something deeper - something with far less options that the apparent continuum open to the ones we currently use in our theories.

So give it a shot.

Subject - The Universe IS finely tuned for intelligent life

Where are the biologists when we need one?
I thought there are several lifeforms with much more presence on the earth. Like ants, or perhaps bacteria. Surely, if an environment is fine-tuned for something it isn't for some minor, fleeting species we find in it? That seems just speciesism rather any conclusion that can be supported.

Going by difficulty to produce, the universe seems fine-tuned to produce Bose-Einstein condensates and we were just one of many steps to the end.

edit: can anyone find me Hawkings statement as per the Subject OP? Seems silly, but if he said it I'd like to try to understand it.

Yeah, this is an important point of view that many don't seem to get. Instead of intelligent life, you can put in pretty much anything that is observed and the argument is the same. The universe is equally fine tuned for Rocks, quasars, ice cream, empty space, poker etc.

"Intelligent life" exists on Earth, which took nearly 4 billion years to evolve in basically 1 species out of millions of others which seem quite content/stuck with their "unintelligent" little societies.

No intelligent life known on the moon.

No intelligent life known on Mars.

No intelligent life known on Mercury.

No intelligent life known on Venus.

No intelligent life known on Jupiter.

No intelligent life known on Saturn.

No intelligent life known on Uranus.

No intelligent life known on Neptune.

No intelligent life known on the sun.

No intelligent life known on extrasolar planets.

No intelligent life known in other star systems.

No intelligent life known in other galaxies.

The small shade of species on earth considered "intelligent" have not received any sort of signal from the rest of the cosmos that there are other "intelligent" life forms.

Science understands and has identified many natural events that are actually harmful and can cause mass extinctions to any kind of life; asteroid impacts and gamma ray bursts to name a few.

This is how we know that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

As Deorum said, the universe might seem much more hospitable or "finely tuned" for the existence of rocks, as we know that there are far, far more of them in the cosmos than there are humans on Earth. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this in standard Jib form.

My apologies.

He probabily did not acknowledge it because it is utterly silly. A lot less fine tuning of the universe is required for rocks to exist than life. This is so because life is a lot more complex than rocks.

Not "equally" fined tuned. The set of possible universes which allows for the existence of quasars is probably much larger then the set of possible universes which allows life to exist.

In principle there could be something so complex, that requires just the right set of conditions to exist that only one universe out of the set of possibles has the required "tuning".

I don't think this is established by the usual 'fine tuning' arguments. If gravity was a little stronger there'd be no life, but also no rocks.

Your claim is plausible, but I don't know how to persuade myself it's true. (FWIW, I think luckyme's point is much more telling - the universe is clearly finely tuned for insectoid life, what are the odds?).

You're asking complexity to do a lot of work here - I think you have a hidden assumption that complex forms require more fine tuning than simple things. As I said above - it's plausible, but is it true?

EDIT: Maybe it's true in life's specific case because life requires things like rocks and suns. This doesnt rely on any special trait of 'complex things' but rather on 'If A requires B but does not necessarily follow from B then A is strictly less likely to occur than B'.

Maybe you could arrange a debate.

First you have to describe what it would look like if they didn't have a debate.

It would have the same content as your posts.

this is all I can find:
Chp. 7
"Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life."

I hope you two are enjoying this as much as I am.

No. There is no known fine tuning needed for life (intelligent or not) that is not needed for rocks.

There is more bacterial life inside of 1 human than there are intelligent beings known to exist in the universe.

Does this fact convince you or deter you from believing that "intelligent life" is the main event of the cosmos?

If there was more intelligent life than bacteria or microbes, that would significantly support your belief, would it not?

Why are you just making stuff up? You have no idea if this is true or not, or what the odds are that it is true.

Cool story bro.

Yes. thanks. so far that's all I've been able to run across also. I was trying to find a quote where he argues that, as per the OP title, that it is,
The Universe IS finely tuned for intelligent life.

Our infinitesimal corner of it manages to harbor briefly good conditions for life to exist. Whether it is good for the origin of life is still open since we don't have that resolved yet.

Is there really a lot of difference between an insect and a human?

Yes? No? I don't know. The point is - Why is the universe so carefully geared to ensure insects exist? That must mean something.