why is the cosmological constant so finely tuned?
10^-122
> inb4 god
Well the only real answers I know of are >muh god and >muh many worlds, which are both unprovable.
>>7702818
> muh anthropic principle
>>7702825
Pretty much this.
>>7702818
>positing the existence of a new universe for the quadrillions of atoms in existence every second for eternity
at least god isn't BTFO by occam's razor.
>>7702825
Pretty much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
>in b4 muh taboo subject
Quantum collapse to accommodate the conscious observer.
if it wasn't so finely tuned, we wouldn't be here
>>7702941
That doesn't answer the question.
>>7702825
>>7702907
>>7702928
>>7702941
Anthro principle doesn't explain fine tuning, that's bollocks. Saying we wouldn't exist if things had been otherwise doesn't explain why they weren't otherwise. Imagine this
>your mother had a 95 percent chance of being infertile
>gave birth to you anyway
>someone asks how that happened
>"Well if she hadn't I wouldn't exist, so it had to happen that way for me to even be able to reason about it."
You see how how that actually doesn't explain shit?
>>7702796
why would you think any universal constant should be rational?
in chaos theory you get into irrational dimensions (dimensions, not quantities) really quick, so I don't see why the entire universe shouldn't be governed by some tiny transcendental numbers.
>>7703322
this
i fucking hate when people bring that shit up as an argument
absolute bullshit
>>7702796
Your question is already implying a judgement.
What the hell do you mean by, "finely tuned?"
It seems to me that your opinion has already been chosen on the matter. You seem to think that nature has been greased up and tuned just for our sake; that there is a reason for our existence.
Are you in high school? If you've really given this any deep thought you'd have quickly realized that no academic discipline, no human thought can give an answer to this question. If you ask why enough times, the only possible answer one can give is "that's just the way things are." Welcome to being human, you fucking faggot.
>>7703322
>Implying that you can objectively and certainly state probabilities.
>Implying that probabilities are anything more than a model for handling a lack of information.
Get the fuck out of here, douche bag.
You clearly don't understand anything that you're talking about, otherwise you wouldn't have given such a retarded example.
>>7702796
I can't stop. You're a fucking moron for even thinking that a man-made model has a 1-to-1 correspondence with reality. Clearly you lack an understanding of both math and physics, and dare I even mention philosophy?
>>7702796
>finely tuned
Meaningless. It is what it is. It has to have SOME value, right? Why is it a surprise to find its a value that allows us to be here to observe it?
>>7703340
>>7703322
>misunderstanding to the maximum
Fine tuning = change this variable just a bit and the Universe becomes:
a) hostile to life
b) inhospitable to humans
Anthropological principle essentially says, that fine tuning is a social construct.
It says
a) universe does not exist to produce life
b) see a), specifically, the universe does not exist to produce human life
>>7703480
>What the hell do you mean by, "finely tuned?"
> Are you in high school?
nah, Lenny Susskind and I are both in pre-school, but we hope to some day reach your level of deep thinking in cosmology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s
I had a salvia trip once where God told me there were an infinite number of Gods on his level and an ultimate God above them. I believe each of the infinite number of Gods represent a universe where cosmological constants vary slightly, and we happen to inhabit the universe where pi = 3.14 :^)
>>7703322
OK, please calculate the chance of the universe being the way it is. Go ahead, I want to have a laugh.
>>7703322
Checked, but it does it explain it. Consider: There may be an unlimited / infinite number of universes. Perhaps the constant is different in every single one. Now calculate the probability that you are in a universe that has a constant "fine-tuned" to allow a creature such as yourself to exist.
Fine-tuning is an illusion. It's like marvelling that we can digest the flesh of other animals. Afterall, how many possible types of DNA are there? We can only eat those that happen to be similar to our own, how fortunate that we evolved on a planet full of just that type!
>>7703553
Please, spare me the credential bullshit. Wonderful, you have a physicist saying things. He seems like a cool guy, and I don't doubt his intelligence one bit, but just because he is speculating the same way as you doesn't mean it's right.
He is making a judgement, just like I'm making a judgement, and just like you're making a judgement.
Guess what!! In the end, his speculating gets no further than yours does. Please, mr. smarty pants, let me know how science is equipped to truly answer why anything, including us, exists. Science can describe relationships, and verify things, but at the spiritual level, please explain how science can tackle the question I just asked.
Why is there gravity? Why is there an electromagnetic force? Why is there mass? We can say because of this and that relationship, and because blah blah blah, but does that answer the question of why there is anything? Nope. Ultimately, that is what is being asked here.
This question doesn't require any knowledge of cosmology. This question doesn't really require any deep thinking. There is no satisfying answer to this question.
Why is there gravity? It's not because of the theory of relativity. Relativity models/ describes the phenomena well, but doesn't explain why it's there. All you can do is speculate. The same goes for the OP's question. Calling it finely tuned is passing a judgement. It's wishful thinking. There's no way of verifying if this is indeed fine-tuning.
Learn to think for yourself instead of fanboying people with PhDs. I know it requires a bit more effort than you're used to, but I promise it's worth it.
>>7704303
butthurt much?
>>7703553
edge dot org/conversation/lee_smolin-leonard_susskind-smolin-vs-susskind-the-anthropic-principle
Please explain why it's so "finely tuned."
It seems that Lenny gives no explanation for this either. He just asks the question and goes on to talk about the effects of changing numbers a little bit.
To call this an answer to the question of "why?" is completely fucking absurd. It's rambling about relationships between things. It's interesting, but not an answer.
Why doesn't he answer it? Well? Your sarcasm seems to imply that you know a thing or two more than I do. I'm eager to receive a meaningful answer to the deepest question ever asked by man, on 4chan at that: the why pertaining to existence.
>>7704326
Caught me.
Confirmation bias hurts my feelings oh so deeply.
Have fun making vacuous claims about infinite parallel universes, and probabilities of this condition and that condition being met, all so you can sleep well at night knowing that you're oh so special.
Why would it be?
Why wouldnt it be?
It just happens to be.
>>7703587
If the universe were infinitely large, it contains infinite possibilities, so there is a finite chance that the universe exists the way it does now.
>>7703601
Any theory which can never be confirmed is almost worthless, and tantamount to just pretending the problem doesn't exist.
>>7704347
>mfw edge.org
The statement "fine tuned" shouldn't be used. It makes the incorrect assertion that it is impossible for any other universe to exist or that its impossible for another one with consciousness to exist. If any constants were different, everything would be different. So what? If there were different constants that caused slime people to exist, they would say, "Wow, the universe is fine-tuned for us! God must be a slime!"
Things just are how they are. The only universes that are observable are the one where consciousness can exist. So it is no surprise that the universe we exist in is one that is "fine tuned" for consciousness.
>>7703322
>>your mother had a 95 percent chance of being infertile
>>gave birth to you anyway
>>someone asks how that happened
God did it :^)
>>7702818
many worlds =/= multiverse
>>7704303
>Science can describe relationships, and verify things, but at the spiritual level, please explain how science can tackle the question I just asked.
>science is not allowed to hypothesize
>>7703549
>Anthropological principle essentially says, that fine tuning is a social construct.
Fine tuning is confirmation bias.
Fixed. Now >>>/pol/
>don't have a perfectly accurate model of the universe
>need to invent a constant to fudge the numbers to match observation
why is the number so perfect!
God is the answer to everything.
>>7704729
Not so much.
Used to be the answer to where the earth came from...NOPE. Accretion disk around our young sun.
Used to be the answer to where our sun and stars came from...NOPE. TBB.
Used to be the answer to where men came from...NOPE. Evolution.
Etc. Now MWI and Anthropic Principle are closing in on the last bits of inexplicable issues left explaining our universe...
>>7702796
It's a ratio between the space dimensions and the time dimension, just like Pi is a ratio of circumference to radius.
