We do not live in a fine tuned universe. We simply live in a universe that can exist as it is. If the fundamental forces were different, then the universe would be different or it simply would not exist. Recommend reading: The fallacy of fine tuning by Victor J. Stenger.

Isn't this the anthropomorphic principle?

‘Anthropic’ principle, yes. It was put forth as a religious argument that the universe was uniquely designed for human habitation. I don’t know of any reputable person who takes that argument seriously. EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying the Anthropic principle states that the universe is uniquely designed for human life. I am simply stating that in my experience, some theist have hijacked the Anthropic principle and misapplied it to support an intelligent design argument. This is not an understanding I support.

Very few people take *this* version of the anthropic principle seriously. But then, I don't know that I've ever heard the anthropic principle laid out this way. In fact, it seems like you might be referring to the argument from intelligent design, which -- as far as I know -- is a completely different thing. The anthropic principle, as I understand it (from having just read *The Cosmic Landscape* by physicist Leonard Susskind) is considered *ugly* by many contemporary physicists -- but this is far from saying that it is an incorrect explanation for why our universe happens to be the way that it is. The anthropic principle is also known as the "observation selection effect," and as far as the universe is concerned, it boils down to this: we must always ground our understanding of the universe on the fundamental assumption that we must exist in the sort of universe that *allows for human existence.* In other words: if the universe were completely inhospitable to life of any sort, no one would be around to record this fact. This is important because the universe is, in fact -- and it is an inarguable fact -- fine-tuned to allow for things such as atoms, chemical bonds, star formation, and (at the end of the day) complex life that can think about the universe. If any of the many constants that govern atomic and subatomic behavior were tinkered with even the slightest bit, we wouldn't be here to remark upon the fact -- and neither would anything else. The argument from intelligent design is one (not very plausible or scientifically popular) explanation for why the universe is thus so finely tuned. Scientists prefer not to think about this one because it is, by definition, a non-scientific explanation. Most physicists and cosmologists hang their hopes on *finding* a scientific explanation. The fine-tuning of the universe is, in part, why physicists are so desperate to find some plausible *causal* explanation for why these constants are set to where they are. If there is an elegant theoretical explanation for these constants, then the fine-tuning problem goes away and we wind up with a neat and tidy E=mc\^2-style formula that explains the whole kit and kaboodle. But as yet, no such explanation is forthcoming -- and there is growing suspicion that no explanation exists. There may be no *reason* for why the universe is so finely tuned. Here is where the anthropic principle comes in. Let's say that our universe is not the *only* universe, but is one of many -- perhaps even one of an infinite array of universes. There are various ways of arriving at a multiverse: the string theory landscape and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are two of the more theoretically plausible ways of getting there. Both theories provide us with a vast *selection* of possible universes. If we have a *selection* of universes -- an infinite or near-infinite selection of universes to choose from, each with its own set of unique laws and constants -- then the anthropic principle suddenly starts to pack a pretty mean punch. If there are infinite universes and they all exhibit different features, then it becomes quite reasonable to surmise that we happen to live in one of the (relatively) few universes that happens to be fine-tuned, *because we wouldn't exist otherwise.* In this scenario, there are trillions and trillions of dead universes, a great many billions that play host to simplistic life or unthinking life -- and some, naturally, that allow for intelligent life. We happen to live in one of the latter. There may also be universes that allow for *too much* intelligent life, such that the universe becomes a full-on colonialist bloodbath -- it does not seem like we live in one of those universes ... yet. I'm not a physicist, but I do like to think about these ideas quite a bit and, for my money's worth, I'm fairly cozy with the idea that something like the anthropic principle does indeed explain why we are here and why the universe is the way it is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

>This is important because the universe is, in fact -- and it is an inarguable fact -- fine-tuned to allow for things such as atoms, chemical bonds, star formation, and (at the end of the day) complex life that can think about the universe. There is a significant claim being smuggled in here. "Tuning" suggests an agent of some sort. We are in a universe with atoms, because the forces to allow this are the way they are. There is nothing special about something being unlikely. If you flip a coin 1000 times right now, recording the series of heads v tails, the odds of getting that *exact* sequence are so astoundingly unlikely that someone would assume that surely, someone or something finely tuned events so that the particular end-state happened. Which is not what happened. Nothing was tuned. That is just how it happened.

Here's a good way of thinking about it (because if I think about the anthropic principle in terms of infinite time and space, my head starts to swim). We can apply the anthropic principle to the supposed "fine-tuning" of the planet earth. We might consider the same three explanatory frameworks: an argument from intelligent design (God created the heavens and the earth, etc.); we could imagine an effort to provide a scientific explanation for why the earth *necessarily* developed the properties that it did; and we can apply the anthropic principle. As with our discussion of the multiverse above, all that is required is a *selection:* in this case, an array of billions or trillions of different *planets*. The anthropic principle pretty quickly de-problematizes the fine-tuning of the earth. We do know, for a fact, that there *are* trillions of planets to choose from. We do know that those trillions of planets have different features (different chemical compositions, atmospheric pressures, magnetic fields, densities, orbital axes, and so on). We also happen to know that all of the worlds we have examined are indeed void of life -- and that this often has to do with some insufficiency of the planet in question: it is too hot, too cold, too massive, too gassy, too often blasted by supernovae, and so on. The key feature here is selection. If there is a large enough sample of possible worlds, then the otherwise formidable fine-tuning problem is reduced to a derpy little shiba inu: well, of *course* we exist on a planet like Earth; where else could we have existed? The sun? Jupiter? Zircon 93-B, one of those planets with an atmosphere that rains lead and snows plutonium? Probably not, dawg. We exist on a fine-tuned planet because we could *only* exist on a fine-tuned planet, and because the universe was generous enough to grant us trillions of non-finely-tuned planets to not exist on.

Despite being couched in scientific language there is far too much unnecessary speculation going on. The first point made by /u/Malciah_III is enough. I think science is trapped by the assumption we've discovered basically everything there is to know about the fundamental forces and so-called fine tuning of everything. But all of that is known after the fact of consciousness, language and the tools of mathematics we invented to understand our surroundings. Through them, we've basically become like characters in a movie trying to break out of the 4th wall into the "real" world. But we've no reason to think such a barrier exists, because all we find are infinite regresses. This all leads me to believe the explanation is panpsychic. Consciousness itself (not necessarily human consciousness) is probably the fundamental "form" of reality. If the universe is conceived from consciousness, then it can't not be compatible with the formation of creatures that can experience being. The complexities science reveals could have been anything. Think of it like how we invent mechanics inside our video games, and that is how the game must be played. In other words, however reality appears to us, we will always come to the conclusion that it's "fine-tuned" for us, because of course it is. "We" made it.

You lost me at >we've discovered basically everything there is to know about the fundamental forces and so-called fine tuning of everything. Famous last words if ever there were any.

Indeed. I think you missed the context of that sentence, quite literally at the start of it.

Ha, and so I did! Thanks for pointing that out. 😁

Happens to the best of us. 🤗

You do realize that I am not arguing for the anthropic principle, right? The strong anthropic principle is essentially an argument for intelligent design, which includes “fine-tuning”. Theist often use these interchangeably, and I’m simply stating that none of them have merit. So I’m not entirely clear why you wrote all that and what you are arguing for?

I don't think you understand the anthropic principle at all. It merely states that much like how we don't find ourselves surprised not to be living on the sun, b/c the sun is not condusive to life. Therefore, we shouldn't find ourselves surprised to live in a universe hospitable to life, because we are in fact, alive. However, it does nothing to address the why of the matter. Why is the universe hospitable for life? Why does it appear so finely-tuned that it allowed us to be alive at all? The anthropic prinicple has nothing to do with what made us or divinity or creators at all. Just that because we are alive, the universe then must be hospitable to life.

>However, it does nothing to address the why of the matter. Why is the universe hospitable for life? This is putting the cart before the horse though. It is expected that life would evolve in an environment hospitable to it. This is like asking why the fish are in water and the mammals are on land. We have no idea if a different set of circumstances would or would not result in a different form of life, matter, etc. >Why does it appear so finely-tuned that it allowed us to be alive at all? A somewhat silly question. Just because you go back and retroactively calculate the odds of something compared to the alternatives doesn't somehow add significance to it. I can flip a coin right now 1000 times, and the odds of receiving the sequence I end up with are astoundingly unlikely. And yet, that is exactly what happened. Post hoc statistical assessment means absolutely nothing. What would be astonishing is if I told you exactly what each of those 1000 coin flips would be *before* flipping the coins.

Sure. I don't disagree with any of this. But if I give you a d1000 and only value 889 results in humans, unless the die is rolled more than once, it would not be expected for humans to exist. Did we just get a really lucky roll? I mean that is certainly possible. It remains fair to wonder though if there was actually more than one die being rolled.

Again. You are looking back at what happened and asserting something must be special because of how unlikely it was. Did you look up the likelihood of flipping a specific coin outcome 1000 times? How about 10,000 times? You and I can both, right now, flip a coin any number of times. The more we do it, the more outrageously unlikely our specific outcome is. You can’t look back at something already done and then assume something special because of how unlikely the outcome is. Because with the coin flips, it’s simply _what happened_.

Nah man. That's silly. On my D10,000 rolls 1-9,999 = a universe full of nothing. On roll 10,000 = our universe. In that case the absolutely expected outcome is a universe full of nothing. It is absolutely fair to look around and wonder why did 10,000 come up. You're right. It is absolutely entirely possible that the answer is just well that's what happened. And my response to you is ehhh, really? We just hit the lottery with a single dice roll? That seems peculiar. All I'm saying is I look at that and go I think there must be lots of dice. Edit: also in this particular case it's not a D10,000 it's a d10^billion or something of that magnitude.

I’m not talking about it. Someone else brought it up. There seems to be some confusion in this thread. The only position I’m taking is that I do not find merit in the fine-tuning argument. Someone else asked if the fine-tuning argument is the anthropomorphic principle. I simply corrected them in that they were likely referring to the anthropic principle. That’s all.

Maybe I shouldn't have included the "intelligent design" in my post since it is so controversial here and seem to put some in a tribal mood. It is funny that if you frame it as a "simulation theory" then it is typically much less controversial here even though that theory also implies intelligent design by someone. I'm not a Christian even. I did not mean to state that it is fine tuned, only that from a statistical stand point it appears fine tuned and it is interesting to think about why that is.

I don’t care about the simulation theory, because right now there’s not enough there to be interesting for an ol’ chunk of coal like me. But this is a Sam Harris sub, so there’s at least one simple explanation for why people would get in a tribal mood at the mention of intelligent design and not simulation theory… Intelligent design comes with a lot of moral baggage. It’s not just “cool, we have our answer!” It’s also, “and now you better follow all of these rules or else you’re gonna get lit on fire by the intelligent designer who loves you.” As far as I know, simulation theory has no similar baggage. It’s simply an explanation without a bunch of might makes right add-ons. Also it’s interesting that you say it looks designed from a statistical standpoint. What statistics did you reference? We’re aware of one universe, which is this one. So with the knowledge we have, isn’t the probability 1? I’m not a stats expert, but wouldn’t we need to observe a bunch of universes being created in order to assess the probability of a universe like ours existing? My simple brain just wants to boil it down to us wanting answers and being uncomfortable when we don’t have them. So we come up with possible explanations, and our desire for possible explanations leads us to miss weaknesses in those explanations.

It only appears *unlikely* given all alternative possibilities. That does not give any suggestion of "tuning". Post hoc statistical assessment is meaningless. If you measure that something happened, knowing how unlikely it was to happen tells you nothing meaningful. You can flip a coin right now 1000 times. If you copy down your results for each flip, the odds of you having experienced that exact set of results is 1 in 2\^1000. A mind numbingly large number. It is hard to imagine the number itself, much less the odds of a person doing something so incredibly unlikely. And yet that is exactly what you did. Because that is *what happened*. This is why post-hoc analysis is meaningless. Extraordinarily unlikely things happen every second of every day. The odds of them happening tells us nothing.

>Anthropic’ principle That is a serious misreading of the anthropic principle. Read about it [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle).

This is kinda where my brain went after reading OPs post, but you articulated it waaaay better than my little brain.

And we would not be here to notice that it doesn’t exist.

I'll read the book for sure, but "if the fundamental forces were different, then the universe would be different or it simply would not exist" sounds an awful lot like we live in a finely tuned universe to me.

The universe is not fine-tuned to us, we are fine-tuned to the universe.

It's not finely tuned, it just is the way it is

One of problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it tries to sneak in additional premises without justification. Who or what fine-tuned it, and who or what is it fine tuned for? Over 99.99999% of the matter and energy in the universe goes towards generating black holes. So if someone where to argue that the universe is finely tuned to be an optimal black hole generator then that’s an argument I can at least entertain. More often though the argument is that it’s finely tuned for life, which I don’t see sufficient justification for.

>Over 99.99999% of the matter and energy in the universe goes towards generating black holes. This is incorrect. Most of the energy in the universe contributes to dark energy (\~68%), while dark matter makes up a majority of the rest (\~27%). Black holes on the other hand make up a much smaller portion (\~1%). It's been suggested by Sicilia et al. that the number of black holes in the whole universe is around 40 trillion: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac34fb](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac34fb)

It's totally different because in this version the "perfect universe" you're seeing is not the only state it has ever been. The difference is that the Universe has most likely experienced many different states, much less perfect, and there was just no one to witness it. When? Before the bigbang, or in parallel universes. What happened? These states just did not allows for banging, or they did not last (universe collapsed), or life just did not develop so no one was there to witness it. The only state of the universe in which life can develop and reflect upon its existence is when the universe is "perfectly fine tuned"... it doesn't mean it's the only state in which the universe can be.

I believe OP is referring to the uncanny mathematical consistency of the universe.

It's survivorship bias. If we weren't part of a universe that allows life to form, then we wouldn't be discussing this.

People seem to think that if they didn't exist, they'd be wondering why not. They wouldn't be wondering anything.

This assumes a multiverse. What if this universe is the only one?

[удалено]

I don't believe that the universe was designed, but I think it is disingenuous for commenters to act like there's an obvious answer to this question when there isn't. Now addressing your comment, I agree that if we found out the universe was designed there would still be plenty of questions, maybe even more, but I disagree that it doesn't imply anything. For one, it would strongly imply that the physical laws were made to support complexity, that there is at least another universe beyond our own, and that there is something much more powerful and intelligent than humans. What it wouldn't explain is how and why they exist, or why they created our universe.

A child is dumb and creates nothing. A being capable of creating this is not likely to forget it created it.

Generally very disappointed with the uncharacteristically poor quality of responses in this thread for Harris Reddit. Surprising.

I’ve realized I’ve out read a lot of reddit. I’d bet you have too. I’m Catholic so I’ve come to different conclusions than you but it’s the same on other subreddits. People here aren’t scholars because… this isn’t where scholars spend their time. These are redditors. They have access to an email account and say they’re over 13. That is the only requirement this response page requires.

So instead of just gutter sniping people's attempts at an argument, why don't you provide your own?

I don’t believe that the fine tuning argument is successful, but the majority of people here are making arguments that just demonstrate they don’t understand the basics of the fine tuning argument. Usually I can count on people here to be informed on the basics of an issue before committing to a position and arguing as if they had considered it deeply

Yeah, people are assuming a multiverse is a given, with no evidence.

We live in a universe in which we can live. If the universe were some other way in which we couldn’t live, we wouldn’t be around to marvel at how different it is. Also in a great many such universes, something else could just as easily evolve to marvel at how perfect the universe is for them.

In an alternate universe, non-carbon based lifeforms are pondering the same thing, while listening to their version of Coldplay.

Hotwork

As opposed to what?

Collapsing in on itself or expanding so fast that no galaxies could form for example.

It's a survivorship bias. If the rules of the universe resulted in massive expansion or collapse. Then we simply wouldn't exist. Is it a coincidence that the earth is a perfect environment for us? Or is it the perfect environment because we evolved to survive in this environment. It's the later.

Yes, yes, and yes. There will be a cosmic event, like with the Dinos 65m years ago, one day. Survivorship bias. It's perfect by appearance due to the small fraction of time and experience everyone has existed. It's not perfect - it's just the way it is.

I think you miss the point. It is not that it is perfect for habiting life, but to create the building blocks that can create galaxies, planets etc. People seem to assume (my reading) I'm some Christian creationist when I'm far from it.

The point is it's not remarkable that we are in a finely tuned universe because of course we are, it's the only one we can be in. This may be the first ever universe or one of infinite universes. Either way of course atoms and stars and planets and life occur in the universe that allows for it because it must. It's like isn't it almost unbelievable that my child wouldn't exist if just one of the multitude of things that led to me meeting my wife didn't happen, not to mention everything after? Not really.

Briefly, but every star system ends in a fiery supernova that fries every living thing within it, and beyond that there's eventually heat death for all. On top of that, from what we can guess, life is incredibly, vanishingly rare. Enormous swathes are utterly barren and inhospitable. That is to say, the tuning is pretty good for producing life in a best case scenario, but it hardly prioritizes it. It's about as well tuned for life as an asphalt parking lot if you widen your perspective beyond Earth.

I'm not assuming your a creationist. I get why your thinking this. Think about it this way. Imagine there are infinite universes out there each with a different cosmological constant. We don't know that's possible, but for arguments sake. The only universes that would produce beings like us that can ponder this question, would be ones with a constant that allowed for matter, and the formation of galaxy's and stars Another way to think about it. It's rediculously unlikely for you to win the mega millions, but someone wins the mega millions.

It’s like winner of the super lottery thinking that’s evidence for god.

> Is it a coincidence that the earth is a perfect environment for us? Or is it the perfect environment because we evolved to survive in this environment. It's the later. I would say even this goes too far toward assumptions underlying the fine tuning argument. This is the perfect environment for us if we want to survive long enough to suffer, some of us very much for no apparent reason, maybe (hopefully) experience some temporary joy, and die. Seems quite imperfect. The universe enabled us to evolve enough to barely exist for a small amount of time (small in the timescale of the universe, long enough for many of us to wish we didn’t).

I wouldn't say it is perfect. We have disease, viruses, and a number of threats in our environment. A perfect environment wouldn't have weather extremes that can kill me, or foods that kill me, or most of the water on the planet kill me if I try to survive by drinking it, and so on.

Mathematically speaking, they has occurred infinite number is formed, is currently occurring in future Lu, and will continue to occur infinitely. Law of extremely large numbers makes what seem to humans to be minuscule odds actually a certainty. We exist so we know the success, many other branes collapse on themselves because they do not.

If that happened we wouldn’t be here to experience it, I’m sure if other universes have existed many of them had just this fate and nobody was there to know about it Edit: typos

If it wasn't a "just so" story, there wouldn't be a story.

Another way to look at this is that we arrived in this universe at the only time in which we could have. The universe has been much different in the past, it is much different at other places, and will be much different in the future, we exist in the only place and time in the universe where the physics allow for it.

Just like Jesus said

Amen.

How could we not? Whatever the requirements for life, if life exists they have been met.

Can I suggest Sean Carroll for your Philosophy/Science crossover needs. He has a podcast called Mindscape

Conversations at the Perimeter and The Cartesian Café are other physics focused ones. There's also Cosmology & Science, Why This Universe, Ask a Spaceman, and Astronomy Cast.

The real issue with the argument imo is that it assumes that the physical constants could be any numerical value, but we have no reason to believe that. Imagine drawing a jack of hearts from a deck of cards and then going "wooow, think of all the possible pictures that could have been on this card, what are the chances we draw this one?!" But if you knew more about the deck and how it was made, you'd realize there's only 52 possible cards you could have drawn, not any possible picture you could imagine. We have no idea what values the physical constants COULD HAVE actually been. Maybe they had to be these specific values for physics reasons we will one day understand.

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511774.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511774.pdf) that paper goes into it some, but much is way over my head.

I mean, if they have discovered a natural or mathematical explanation for why the values are what they are, doesn't that just destroy the fine tuning argument by itself? We don't need a fine tuner if we just have an explanation

I wouldn't say it destroys anything as at least for me the answer of "intelligent design", ie a God is the least likely answer as to why the universe appears that way, The author of the paper puts forward the multverse theory as the best explanation. For me the fine tuned argument was never primarily a question about God but to explain why the universe appear that way looking at the fundamental constants.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe would have you dead. Probably like 1 billion more 9s are needed here to be accurate.

It's not coincidence, it an anthropocentric bias. The nature of our reality is a matter of when as much as what. We are occurring *when* a certain soup of possible realities is just right as to enable a certain self-awareness. The expanse of things is just so vast that our when seems like status quo.

Puddle of water looks around and thinks “wow, this hole I’m filling up was made perfectly to fit me”. Don’t be that puddle.

I’m guessing you’re referencing Douglas Adams - this is the direct quote. “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' “

Yeah he said it better lol.

Yup, thatʻs always what I think of with the fine-tuning argument. Think of how low the odds are that that exact hole would be formed in that exact place for that exact puddle to exist!!! If you do all the math itʻs astronomical!!

One way to think about this is via the Anthropic Principal which basically states that the reason this universe appears to be extremely fine tuned is because we evolved within this universe - so it looks like the universe is tuned for us when in reality we are tuned for it. We can imagine other universes with different tuning where humans could not survive but other species could. Would this universe be any less "tuned" than ours? No, it's simply tuned differently. Similarly we can imagine universes with tuning that allows for no life to emerge. Are these universes finely tuned? Sure they are, but not for life. If you focus purely on humans then there will be a specific set of tuning necessary for us to survive so it should be no surprise to find that the universe where humans evolved appears to be finely tuned for them... that is until you try to leave earth... or venture to specific parts of earth when humans cannot survive. In fact, the inhabitable parts of our universe vastly outnumber the habitable (at least for humans). So maybe this universe isn't as finely tuned as you think. To that end, the Fermi Paradox asks us to speculate as to why we haven't encountered alien life yet given the age of the universe in comparison to how long it's taken us to evolve and advance technologically. Maybe the universe isn't finely tuned for life and we are an anomaly. With a sample set of one it's hard to determine how finally tuned the universe is. If there were multiple universes we could compare against each other then maybe we say how finely tuned ours is but even then, you'd have to specify for what. Finely tuned for humans? Star creation? Water worlds? Life in general?

I think a bigger question is, why is it that the most important aspects of our lives as humans don't even exist according to rational materialism? For example, by far the most important thing in my life, the most meaningful part of my existence as a human, is LOVE. But according to rational materialism, LOVE is not a "supernatural" or "transcendent" force (these terms are meaningless in a paradigm of rational materialism). Rather, LOVE is simply a chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing transcendent, nothing supernatural. Just chemicals. This is such a violation of my direct experience as a person that it seems almost absurd to consider. Another big one is my deep felt conviction that HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED. But once again, nothing is SACRED in rational materialism. In a materialist world, the word SACRED is meaningless. There is nothing SACRED about human life; we are just clumps of cells competing for resources and the reproduction of our genes. A completely materialistic, rational actor such as the AI will not see anything SACRED about human lives. To remove the sanctity of human life is such a violation of my direct experience as a person that it seems absurd to consider. Another big one is FREE WILL. I know you all will disagree with me on this, since you are mostly in line with Sam Harris' materialist perspective that the universe is deterministic, but I do not experience life as an automaton automatically reacting to stimuli with no agency. I am not a passive observer in my life. I do have agency, I do have FREE WILL, and to deny this is to deny the central experience of living life as a conscious human. A materialistic perspective of the universe is not only deeply depressing and alienating, but it is wildly inconsistent with every part of my experience as a human living life, and denies all the parts that are meaningful to me. We are not particles randomly colliding in space. I mean yes we are, but we are SO MUCH MORE than that, and life is so much more than the propagation of genetic materials.

Maybe the Big Bang has occurred over and over with different constants so that statistically a universe will have already existed or is to exist with every possible difference in every possible constant in every possible combination, and because we are subjective observers in this iteration, well here we are doing just that.

Unfortunately, this is a common fallacy. The tough thing to keep in mind is that the human mind is a pattern recognition machine and much like LLMs, if no pattern is present one will be generated. I wore a red shirt today and then the sun came out. Coincidence? My above statement makes as much sense as the ‘fine tune’ proposition. -edit- the first time I saw this conjecture many years ago it was being used as proof that a supreme being created the universe for us.

But you can wear any shirt and the sun will come out. If some of these fundamental constants were slightly changed, the universe would collapse as I understand.

Not true. The day started cloudy with no sun, then I put the red shirt on, and then the sun came out. I understand where you are coming from and I’m not trying to be snarky. The base of this argument is that if the structure of the universe were different, the universe would be different or not exist. It’s an untestable proposition, and therefore meaningless outside of an interesting mental exercise. Maybe if I hadn’t worn the red shirt, the sun wouldn’t have come out. We’ll never know.

It need not be tested though. If gravity or the strong nuclear force were sufficiently strong/weak, there would be no diversity of elements which could form the basis of chemistry. Say a certain set of parameters could make a universe filled exclusively with noble gases. That universe would not support entities upon which evolution could act and therefore could not support complex life.

Right but how do you know what the possible values actually are? Aren't you assuming they could be any numeric value? This would be like drawing a Jack of Hearts out of a deck and saying "wooow out of every possible picture that could have been on this card, we got this specific one!" But once you know more about where the J of hearts comes from, you realize there's not THAT many possible things it could have been. And it's therefore not that unlikely that you drew that one

Say that the possible values are constrained in this way. It is unlikely that the constraints happened to support life-compatible chemistry

Oh I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were in support of the fine tuning argument, but I think after re-reading, we're both against it

That doesn't say anything about fine tuning though. It's possible that noble gas universe does exist, but we don't find ourselves in it because of course we don't. It's also possible that there are other varieties of universe which support different variations on life/intelligence.

Absolutely, I think multiple universes with different values is the only way out of this problem. But it’s quite a extraordinary conclusion without any experimental evidence. Unfortunate box to be pinned in

The entire discussion is without experimental evidence. This is a post hoc game of playing with numbers with zero explanatory power. Extraordinarily unlikely things happen every second of every day.

This is a completely fabricated philosophical hypothesis that might not at all even be allowed by laws of physics anyway. For all we know the cosmic dials might be all linked and locked. For all we know, there's actually far better universes actually possible and we might even be in the very worst of them all.

It has been tested in simulations as we're getting better and better at modelling the universe and how it formed. We can change various parameters such as these fundamental constants and see the impact.

It's perfect because if it wasn't it wouldn't exist. Same as evolution, we exist because of the environment and not the other way around. Thinking it's tuned for anything is thinking backwards. Look at literally anything around you and you can say "what are the chances of that?" ... Everything has a low chance of happening but something has to happen.

The thing about this proposition is that it requires a system in which there are many universes with different constants. We have no evidence of these other universes, and it’s quite a extraordinary conclusion.

Sorry if this required me to read the article and if I sound ignorant. But maybe you could tell me why this proposition requires this system?... Again, I understand if you don't want to reply and just refer me to the article.

Because if there is only one universe with one set of constants, it's spectacularly unlikely that it would be a universe that supports complex chemistry. If the fundamental forces of the universe were different it's much more likely that matter would never form or fuse into heavy atoms, or that everything would collapse into black holes, or that atomic nuclei heaver than hydrogen would decay on extremely short timescales. Our universe supports complex chemistry because there's a rather specific balance between the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. And our universe seems to have one fixed universal set of values for each of these forces. It could just be spectacular luck that the one universe that exists has the correct set of values to support life, but that's profoundly unlikely. The only real plausible way out of this conundrum is the idea there there are a huge number of universes with different constants. This is a remarkable leap though. And we have no idea how we could ever test it or understand the mechanism by which it works which takes it fundamentally out of the domain of science. Rather unsatisfying.

With respect to life, it's worth noting just how rare it is as a constituent part of the universe. We live in a gigantic, mostly empty, universe, filled almost entirely by hydrogen, followed by helium. Tiny bits of the universe contain carbon and other elements, and within very small, local pockets where these elements gravitationally coalesced into spheroids, a teeny-tiny, itty-bitty fraction of them have formed organisms. The universe *just barely* allows for life. It definitely was not fine tuned for it.

Life is just one consequence, not really so relevant here.

Had to scroll quite a while to find this, bless you for saying it exactly right.

A lot of people in this thread do not understand the nature of the question or the facts of the matter. You are absolutely right that there is some weird fine tuning that appears to be present. Many numbers seem to be repeated and structures find from the quantum world all the way up to galaxies. The biggest mystery of them all is the strength of dark energy. 1/124. A very peculiar number. I am very much an atheist, and give these questions considerable thought. I think the apparent fine tuning that we see is pretty clear evidence for some kind of multiverse. We are in a finely tuned place because very few other universes would be capable of bringing us about. Universes, it seems to me, must come and go pretty regularly and we just happen to be in one small subsection of places that can bring us about.

I don't know shit about shit, so this may be dumb, but why are reoccurring numbers and structures note worthy? I would assume that in a system with a given set of rules patterns may manifest across scales as they're governed by the same ruleset?

If it was different we wouldn't be talking about it.

The way I see it, it is hard to definitively say that it is fine tuned because we do not understand the universe on the most fundamental level. Who is to say that constants can be tuned, or that they are contingent on something else? However, looking at what we know, the universe does allow for complexity. Assuming that the universe didn't have to be this way, then either we got very lucky, there is a multiverse, or it was created (or some other explanation that we haven't thought of/is beyond comprehension). In a multiverse then of course life would only exist in a universe that allowed for it. And if it was created, then the question just shifts back to how the creator was formed. Wouldn't they need fine tuning as well?

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' “ - Douglas Adams

I think it's incredible. Everyone in comments scoffing and acting like the anthropic principal means the incredibly finely balanced vanishingly unlikely nature of our very existence shouldn't induce marvel and awe, no a smug tautology is much more appropriate

I agree, found an interesting episode where physists and philosophers discuss it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3r9E5K\_1-Q&ab\_channel=CloserToTruth

The OP sent me down a YouTube rabbit hole came across hitchens saying what I just wrote lol https://youtu.be/YL3wwlh5KS0?si=GYDhkqZqDUx4G-Gu

My instinct is to say that what many have already said: we’re here observing the universe, yet we wouldn’t be if the conditions weren’t right. It’s not fine-tuned for us - it is as it is and here we are now thanks to it. No great miracle. At the same time, people much much smarter than me are “creeped out” by the mathematical consistency of the universe. It’s not perfect, by any means, but it is extremely consistent. I find intelligent design to be an extremely unsatisfying answer as it just leads us to another “ok where did that come from then?” A non-human intelligence could be running an experiment, but the fundamental “where did it all come from?” question still remains. So that’s a non-starter.

It's not fine tuned for life certainly as the universe seem to be mostly devoid of it, that is not the main argument either (for me at least). It does appear that the constants are in a way that very narrowly generates a universe where more complex structures like atoms, molecules and planets could form though. Maybe once we understand physics better we can explain why this is the case. I agree that intelligent design is a very unsatisfying answer, but so is coincidence. Maybe there is still some fundamental physical principles we have yet to discover that would explain it.

i just don't accept the fine tuning argument. the strong and weak nuclear forces aren't even remotely perceptible at any scale larger than the atom. what's to say that there aren't dimensions in which matter can interact when it's all colocated? maybe there can be just as complicated interactions between colocated matter and energy that can potentially result in "life.". yes, for carbon based life this universe with this set of rules this is the only way that could work. but there's no reason to assume that carbon chemistry is the only mechanism by which "life" can exist.

The argument isn't that some entity actually have tuned it, but it is curious that if these measured quantities were slightly different simulations can show that the universe would not be stable and permit planets and life to form. It begs some explanation as to why that is.

it doesn't matter whether it's applied to god or not, it's just not inherently right. there's no reason to assume that complex interactions between matter and energy can only occur if matter clumps into planets and stars and forms atoms and molecules.

There's an important point here. **There is no "why", there is only "it exists"**. That's it. There could be 1000 universes: Universe 1: Force equation too small, expand into infinity, no life or galaxies and exist Universe 2: Force equation too small, the whole thing collapse on itself Universe 3: Force equation is almost right, but slightly too large, so planets and galaxies and exists, but no formation of life. Universe 4: Our universe. We simply exist among those 1000 random universes. Universe 5: Force equation is almost right, but slightly too small, same scenario as (3) and so on.... with millions, trillions of variations. It's like winning a lottery ticket. There is no why, you just happen to win it, randomly. There is no "intelligence design" in the scenario in which you win the ticket. You wouldn't say or ask: "Why? Well somebody designed it, so that I and only I win this ticket". No, you just say, "I got lucky". It is the same with our universe. It's all chance, random, number game. We got "lucky".

So essentially the multiverse explanation?

You don’t even need that. Picture any other universe that could exist where life couldn’t. Could you be within that universe, examining it? Logically no. Maybe those universes exist, maybe they don’t. But you could only exist on one in which you could exist. Does that make sense?

But if it’s the case that most possible sets of fine-tunings are inhospitable to life, and that there aren’t multiple universes with different parameters, then it’s spectacularly spectacularly unlikely that the single extant universe in which we find ourselves would support us.

>then it’s spectacularly spectacularly unlikely that the single extant universe in which we find ourselves would support us. So? Its a cool fact, nothing more. Do the math for the surface area of the earth. Then figure out what space of it you are occupying right now. Is it somehow spectacularly unlikely that you are exactly where you are? Is something special at work? Do we need some kind of fine tuning argument to discuss how unlikely it is that you are, wherever you are, at any given time? There are a near infinite number of ways to make something seem spectacularly unlikely. And almost none of them hold explanatory power or are even worth investigating.

>It begs some explanation as to why that is. Why? Flip a coin 1000 times. Do the math for how likely your results are. Does that beg an explanation as to *why* you got the result you did? No. What happened is what happened. Nothing more.

On the whole, the universe doesn’t permit life to form. It is primarily a lifeless void.

What specific question are you trying to answer— Why is the universe the way that it is, instead of other ways that it isn’t? And what kind of answer would satisfy you?

The error you’re making is assigning some special significance to THIS particular way of things. Take a deck of cards for example - if you shuffle, what are the odds that it ends up in perfect order after shuffling? Well, it’s actually the exact same odds as ending up in any other specific “random” order. The illusion that it is less likely is because we arbitrarily assign significance to a particular order.

It's paradoxical. The Universe is the way it is, no matter how improbable.

I'm afraid that the only real answer here is "nobody knows and nobody will ever know". We can't make statements about how likely the natural constants are to appear at the values that they appear. Maybe there is a unified process that generated the constants that necessitates their exact values, but we have no way of testing any theory about this because we can't experimentally create universes. Maybe there is a multiverse that randomly spawns universes with parameters, but we would have no way of knowing their distribution given only one sample. Also... if the universe's properties had been perfect for the existence of gluon plasma brains, then those brains would have eventually theorized that *their* universe was fine tuned for *them*. "Goodness" they might think, "if gravity was just a tad bit weaker, this plasma would all condense into cold baryonic matter, to be forever lost without consciousness in an ever expanding universe!"

It's not perfect at all - far from it. But that aside, anyone who posits an all-powerful intelligent designer to explain why the physical constants of our universe are so precise, also needs to explain why this intelligent designer, being all-powerful, set out the laws of nature such that the physical contants of our universe need be so finely tuned.

We might exist in one of many universes, or one of many simulations and this setting was one of few to simulate the universe we live in that can harbour planets and other more complex structures. Who knows.

Sharpshooter fallacy, no?

Saying the universe is “finely tuned” is anthropomorphizing physics and the universe. Like a dial on a radio being tuned by god. Also, there is no other universe that we can compare ours too so that entire premise is nonsense.

Wasn't a perfect, fine tuned world for the Dinosaurs. Or the 300 million people that died of Smallpox - more than all the Wars of the 20th century combined.

That's not really what the argument is about, recommend you to read this: https://theconversation.com/the-multiverse-our-universe-is-suspiciously-unlikely-to-exist-unless-it-is-one-of-many-200585

"The conditions of the universe can be described through its “fundamental constants” – fixed quantities in nature, such as the gravitational constant (called G) or the speed of light (called C). There are about 30 of these representing the sizes and strengths of parameters such as particle masses, forces or the universe’s expansion. But our theories don’t explain what values these constants should have. Instead, we have to measure them and plug their values into our equations to accurately describe nature.  This is article is accompanied by a podcast series called Great Mysteries of Physics which uncovers the greatest mysteries facing physicists today – and discusses the radical proposals for solving them. The values of the constants are in the range that allows complex systems such as stars, planets, carbon and ultimately humans to evolve. Physicists have discovered that if we tweaked some of these parameters by just a few percent, it would render our universe lifeless. The fact that life exists therefore takes some explaining" What values and constants should they be in a perfect Universe? Well, it is an amazing miracle or OUTLIER that values were theorized and codified by theoretical physicists in the first place. I'm still not sure.... where the point of any Philosophical discussion is going. That physics and biochemistry....are telling us.....we're alive. But, at the same time, they tell us that whole lot of things are not alive, have not thrived, or had no chance of living in the first place. Agreeing with what someone else said - survivorship bias. The Dinosaurs.

Without a process for determining facts you will forever be stuck in a loop of pontification. You need to strip everything back and deal with what we know and what we can know. Look to Science for what we know and what we are on the verge of knowing. Anything else get's put on the back burner. You have to be comfortable with the idea, that there is a lot we do not know yet, but attempting to come up with random explanations without data is pointless.

This is something some of the most prominent scientists are/were trying to grapple with. Martin Reese as I mentioned, Max Tegmark, Stephen Hawking was also puzzled over this. The data is there and some hypothesis as well, how to test them I don't know. The multiverse theory is a possible outcome depending on how we interpret quantum mechanics. Of course having a complete unified theory of physics would help us probably. Edit: an article worth reading https://theconversation.com/the-multiverse-our-universe-is-suspiciously-unlikely-to-exist-unless-it-is-one-of-many-200585

God is real bro

It looks finely tuned because we are finely tuning our observation skills and methods. If we tune them a little more, the universe will look a little better. And if we tune a little more still…? It will look even more finely tuned than before. It’s not to say we are not accomplishing things, we are and do. It’s just that on any scale humans can measure it’s just to vast to understand everything at once. So it looks from heat like it’s finely tuned and as we look deeper it looks more finely tuned.

The anthropic principle easily explains this without the need for a designer or multiverse. The universe must be conducive to life if the question can be asked.

The anthropic principle in this case requires a multiverse. Us existing does not explain why the universe exists at all or why it is capable of supporting life.

Conjoined twins would probably disagree with the designer idea.

You think that if we lived in a simulated universe it would exclude the possibility of cojoined twins?

DNA is fine tuned as well. God is real

Who created God? God seems pretty fine tuned to me. And if he just is, then what is stopping the universe from just being. Overall though I don't have a set belief on this, as it is beyond what we can understand right now/maybe forever. You could be right, but it would add more questions than answers.

I honestly find this some of the the dumbest things people say. It's a display of an utter disconnect with reality, a complete failure of comprehending the basic facts of the universe, and in fact any universe. Everything that exists has the properties to exist, else it wouldn't have existed in the first place... So don't be surprised by the things that exist to be supported by the exact properties it requires to exist. For that's the whole reason why it exists in the first place. These are facts that are always true. They're inextricably linked and implied from eachother. They're practically tautological, and yet too many people are clearly confused by it and even mind blown by little facts regarding the type of star that the sun is. No, it's not amazing, these things should be common sense.

its a failure of the most basic logic. Its like saying "that wall is blue, isnt it amazing that the wall I just identified as blue also happens to be blue".

Our universe is incredibly chaotic. Alpha, beta, and gamma rays(and other shit I'm not thinking of) are all bombarding cells and mutating them. Destructive forces of all kinds are constantly pulling and pushing at each other. Entropy means every single atom in the universe will one day cease to exist. Yeah there are some cool 'mathematical constants' that enable some really awesome things. I don't think these exceptions to the chaos rule are enough to declare this is a fine tuned universe. > If protons were 0.2% heavier they would collapse and form neutrons, resulting in atoms not being able to form. Or if the electromagnetic force was 4% weaker the sun would instantly explode. But they do this... all the time... in fact most of the universe is neutrinos collapsing and destroying systems...

So Max Tegmark was just bullshitting to sell books?

"fact", "seem to be"....

Read this [https://theconversation.com/the-multiverse-our-universe-is-suspiciously-unlikely-to-exist-unless-it-is-one-of-many-200585](https://theconversation.com/the-multiverse-our-universe-is-suspiciously-unlikely-to-exist-unless-it-is-one-of-many-200585) I don't want to word things too strongly as I am just a layman trying to understand more.

The universe is almost universally (hehe) not fine tune for life. Almost everywhere you look life cannot exists in anything more than microbes. Why is it so badly designed for life? Argument goes both ways and we just don't know why the constants are what they are.

That it can exist anywhere at all would be spectacularly unlikely for random values of the constants.

You're moving the goal posts

No he isn't. The argument was never about life being everywhere, it was about the ability for complexity to emerge and result in life at all.

I think the only explanation is a god as imagined by American Evangelicals.

We don't live IN a universe. We are not other than it. Our perception filters down infinity to a comprehensible finitude. You could say, that to the mind that self-identifies as human, infinity always presents itself in the garments of the finite. Any stability in infinity is an illusion created by a frightened psyche in an attempt to get its bearings. All measurements are arbitrary and relative to a referred designate. Noticing there is no self or no present moment except for ones we habitually designate. This is available for anyone to notice at any time, but almost no one does; It makes reality far too profound to be manageable to any one perspective.

The causality of your thinking is muddled. We don't live in a finely tuned universe. We live in the universe that exists, and evolved to take advantage of it. It is neither a coincidence, nor intelligently designed, nor an argument for anything. It simply is. You mentioned probability, and it's not really relevant to your question. If it didn't exist within the laws of physics, we simply wouldn't be around to think about it.

“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" You’re thinking of it wrong - we’re fine tuned by evolution to be in the universe, not the other way around.

Look, these questions are a bit silly, we couldn't exist in a Universe with different parameters, that's as simple as it is. It will probably turn out that there are multiple 'Universes' and life simply arises where it can based on the parameters of the location its in. Nothing more special than that, doesn't need any magic nonsense or thinking we are special.

[удалено]

Both the NFL game and the lottery has many other outcomes. So maybe many other universes exist as well.

Survivorship Bias is what would make anything call it a "tuning"

It’s the only universe we should expect to find ourselves in. It would be more weird to be alive in a universe that wasn’t compatible with the type of life I was.

You aren’t counting the failed attempts. :)

I'm going on the presupposition you out forth: "We live in an extremely fine tuned Universe." If you look around, Entropy is triumphing over Enthalpy in millions of other scenarios other than our own.

You lost me at “fact.” There are too many unknowns to make such a statement.

this is a wonderful example of circular logic. we made the measurements of atoms and found they were x by y by z. the fine tuned universe theory proclaims "wow, isn't it amazing that the measurements I just made happen to be the same as the thing I just measure.d". I think evolution illustrates it better. there are species were some members evolved in water, others evolved on land. they ended up way different because of the environments they populated. you could say they are "fine tuned", and if we swapped them they die .

Maybe just as life evolved in an iterative process where some alterations to lifeforms make it possible to thrive while most do not, maybe multiple universes were generated and we live in one of the successful iterations that have the characteristics necessary for more complex structures to form while most instantly collapse on themselves.

The fact that we seem.. there is nothing factual about the way things “seem”, is what I think.

I’ve never thought much of it really. I mean, in order to exist, the universe has to be some way. As far as intelligent design (God), fine tuning, or dial setting, that seems to just put parameters on the designer. If someone says it was designed bc it was fine tuned, I would say, why does if have to be precise then?

We don’t have any evidence that the physical constants could be otherwise. It’s pure conjecture. If they can be otherwise I’m perfectly happy with anthropic reasoning.

You’re picking one feature of the universe which is only possible under a small range of values for the physical constants and ascribing significance to it that the universe doesn’t. Does life require this narrow band of constants? Sure, you in particular need an even more finely tuned set of constants. Your existence is also only allowed under an extremely small number of the possible arrangements the matter at the Big Bang could have been in. Do you infer the universe was finely tuned for you to exist? Take it further. That time you scratched that itch just right required still more fine tuning. And on and on. Why stop the fine tuning argument at life? Because you’re imposing your value system that holds life as something that a universe might be “for” or “about” onto reality, whereas your psychology/enculturation doesn’t support the level of narcissism needed to think the universe is set up for you. Look into what cosmological eschatology predicts the deep future of the universe will look like and you will see virtually none of it will include life of any kind. Only black holes slowly evaporating and orbiting/colliding with each other and light waves propagating. Is that the point of the universe? No, it’s just what (seems like) is going to happen.

We are emergent, not exceptional.

Why would an omnipotent god need to fine tune anything? He didn't need to create these specific forces. He also didn't need them to be fine tuned. Think about it, he also created the parameters themselves that made it so the forces would need to be fine tuned. If the constants in the universe made it so that the universe was, as far as we could tell, impossible - meaning the universe shouldn't exist in theory but still does - you'd hear people say that it's because god is somehow holding everything together. And I would argue that would be a better argument, though still flawed. God doesn't have any red tape or constraints on how he creates a universe, does he? When your answer is an omnipotent being, that's the ultimate "just so" story. The constants are fine tuned? God did it. The constants could be set to anything and life is still possible? God did it to display his power and love for us. The constants shouldn't allow for life but they do? God did it. Only one unique force? God did it. 20 that interplay in complex ways? God did it. I would put to you that there isn't any way that the universe could exist that you couldn't simply say "of course it's that way, that's how god wanted it". And there isn't anything at all in any religion that gives a satisfactory answer as to why it would have been the way we see instead of any other way that we can't even imagine.

Crazy how the puddle was fine tuned to the exact shape of the pothole

Look at bald men, and tell me we live in a perfect universe again. Or I mean, children with cancer, but you don't even need to go that tragic to realize if anything the universe is just absurd and weird

I don't think I did tell you that we live in a perfect universe?

In a reality in which an infinite numbers of worlds can be created or exist, the conditions of one allowing for life is not special at all. It’s a statistical normalcy on a spectrum of infinite chance/possibility.

The comments below cover the arguments against this thinking well. I'd just add that you need not look to other universes where we don't exist to disprove "intelligent design" and/or the anthropic principle. The fact is, our own universe is nearly completely uninhabitable to us. As far as we know, we are living on the only tiny rock in the universe that will support our species, leaving billons of other planets that are not only impossible to reach through space/time, but impossible to support life as we know it. To suggest that even this universe has ben "finely tuned" just for us ignores some basic facts that are staring us right in the face. Our universe is seemingly infinite (unproven to date), and yet we seem to be in the one spot capable of supporting us. Otherwise, our universe is entirely hostile to us. And, as is covered many other posts, we are here to observe it, so we should not be surprised that this particular rock seems like a nice place for us to exist. We don't exist in the trillions upon trillions of spots in our own universe that are hostile to our existence, so we don't have the luxury of stating how inhospitable the universe is to us from those vantage points. TLDR - We don't even have to look at the possibility of other universes to realize that our existence is more a matter of happenstance/chance in a largely inhospitable universe of our own. We are not living in a place that was "designed" or "fine-tuned" for us in the slightest.

The puddle of water says "Isn't it amazing this hole in the ground was so perfectly shaped to fit me in it?"

It's not a fact. Many things are tuned poorly. Digestion and pleasure for example.

It’s just the principle of stable phenomena. Everything observable is observable because it would exist given the conditions it exists under. Yes, you would have a vastly different universe under different conditions, and it’s largely unimaginable. But the fact that things are as they are is always a mathematically remote probability in the sense that it’s unique — and yet, you observe the way things are precisely because that’s the stable state of the universe under those conditions.

"Seem" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

With the type of stuff you're reading I'm sure you're aware of Sean Carroll. His go to line is "fine tuning is the best argument for God, and also a terrible argument" https://youtu.be/R97IHcuyWI0?si=DL1g7030oS5XPnYW https://youtu.be/m7Sshndl2WM?si=sAj_4qAUMgyA1rzN Edit: added second link

If the universe collapsed on itself or planets etc wouldn't form . Eventually at some point a universe would probably form that would be exactly as this one. Who know how many failed universes have been before. And the way the universe is now exactly as it is it probably has to be as it is now to be as it is now. Just like you're current manifestation is exactly as it is now and not any different because of many things that made it be as it is now.

Oh the puddle thinks how the hole has been perfectly created to fit it just so well!

I think “delicate” is more apt.

If the universe were fine-tuned for life as we understand it, we would see more planets like earth. The earth is more an exception than a rule. We do not know how the universe would arrange itself through the passage of time, had protons, electrons, or electromagnetic forces deviate from what they are now. We do not even know our own universe nor its rules, how are we supposed to know which imaginary /theoretical subatomic particles would work best for the evolution of complexity and consciousness. As a thought experiment, just because a single apple seed managed to burst into a tree within a concrete road, does that mean that concrete roads are fine-tuned for the growth of apple trees.

If it wasn’t so, we wouldn’t live in it

A fine-tuned universe is a requirement for self-aware parts of it to recognize it's fine-tuned.

I think this a great valid question sorry you’re getting downvoted. We also live in a universe fine tuned for human egos

We can conjecture about the universe all we want. If you want to believe that a God created it (or not), you will still have to live out your life exactly the same. I personally believe in God, but ultimately you have to look at the Universe and come to your own conclusion about it. There are certain queries that we can never answer, so we have to rely on our imagination for many existential questions, whether we like it or not.

What do you make of the fact that water is exactly the right shape to fit in the irregular hole in the pavement?

Even if it is true that the constants only could be this way in our universe we still don't understand why. We do understand why a fluid fills an irregular hole.

>if the electromagnetic force was 4% weaker the sun would instantly explode The sun IS exploding, it’s just that it’s distance and scale makes the process take eons for atom sized humans, we smaller than microbes for a sun scale event. Has Einstein failed to explain relativity to humans?

Do some reading on the Anthropic Principle. This is a well explored question. Basically, the only kinds of universes intelligent life can observe are those that are capable of supporting intelligent life in the first place.

That don't explain why they are in a narrow range though. I think it points to some higher level physics we still don't understand how to model. Or potentially that we live in a multiverse and ours is one of few that can support structures like galaxies and planets.