Why is the universe fine tuned for life?

Define "fine tuned"

>>7578911
Use "google"

>>7578907
It's not.

>>7578907
m8 99,99999999999999999% of universe is inhospitable for life as we know it

Same reason your mom is fine tuned for my protruding manhood.

Selection bias

>>7578919
any universe in which life exists is fine tuned for life to exist.

>>7578907
It's not. The future of our universe is not compatible with life as we know it.

>>7578934
>any car which is capable of moving is fine tuned for driving

Yes, I could see how having a useless definition for "fine tuned" could lead you to make statements that are equally-useless.

>>7578959
Your analogy doesn't relate to what he said though. But it was a good try.

I might argue the opposite.
Life is fine tuned for the universe.
We grow to fit our cage.

>>7578959
I don't think I've ever seen a good analogy on this board.

File: 1419644539799.gif (88KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x352px

If the laws of physics or other universal constants were slightly different we likely wouldn't have stars or planets or life. So in a sense the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.

because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here if it wasn't.. it's like why a fish will not evolve in a desert

>>7578967
>Your analogy doesn't relate to what he said though. But it was a good try.
Not him, but he's right.
"fine tuned = any remote possibility of any self-replicating stuff" is a remarkably loose definition, and while the phrase is meant to be suggestive, this definition is disappointing, since it could probably apply to nearly any potential universe
Sure, if things were any different it wouldn't be the same, but it's likely *some* form of life was bound to exist at some stage of the universe's existence, no matter how much you twiddle the parameters.

A better definition might be:
"fine" = meeting a narrow band of parameters
"tuned" = adjusted by someone
...in which case, no, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life.

>>7578977
>If laws of physics or other universal constants were slightly different we likely wouldn't have stars or planets
Stars and planets aren't the only possible environment for life.
And "slightly different" is a meaningless term until we have other universes to compare this one to.
What if humans had only seen one giraffe, ever.
How would we know if it's neck was unusually long for a giraffe?
For all you know, nearly all universes have stars and planets.

Besides...
>>7578980
>if it wasn't we wouldn't be here

Asking "what are the odds life would form here?" is a bullshit question because we ARE here.
You're asking "what are the odds I'd be born in a world that supports life"?.
The answer is "100%", no matter wht a long shot life itself was to begin with.

>>7578998
Without planets life as we know it certainly could not form.

If a universe was not suited to star formation the only elements would be hydrogen and helium and its difficult to imagine how any self replication would take place.

>>7578907
what is the anthropic principle

>>7579005
>as we know
there's that phrase again

>>7579009
Yeah because I'm not talking about life that we don't know as that is insanely speculative, way moreso than I am already being.

If you agree that the basis of life is complex molecules (life as we know it), then in a universe without stars its basically impossible for any life to exist.

>>7578920
And the chance of life getting to where it is today is just as small.

>>7579016
>insanely speculative
>>7579016
>basically impossible

Nope, that's completely wrong.
If life is just self-replicating patterns of _something_ that can change over time to adapt to its environment, then it could exist in nearly any universe.
That's not "insanely speculative", it's just common sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

>>7579018
>And the chance of life getting to where it is today is just as small.
The next time you get a flat tire, consider this:
no matter which tire went flat, the odds were 3:1 against it being that particular tire.

>>7579024
It's hard to discuss this without a definition of life.

You are defining life as a self replicating pattern of something. Is it fair to simply reduce this as a repeating pattern? I fail to see how conways game of life is relevant to this, as that does not show life, at least by my understanding.

>>7579005
Implying life couldn't exist in another way

>>7579041
I'm not implying that, which is why I qualified my statements using life as we know it.

It's largely a waste of time to discuss the existence of life in a star less universe as it is so speculative.

From the evidence we have observed in this universe, there is nothing to suggest that life can form solely from hydrogen and helium. This doesn't mean its absolutely impossible as I don't know, I just think its very unlikely.

File: 1437649394929.gif (2MB, 268x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 268x200px

>>7578907
It's to do with newton's fourth law of mechanics

>>7579058
>>7578907
newton's fourth law
>OP is the purist of all faggots

>>7579052
>life as we know it.
Then you're really just saying "if it were any different, it wouldn't be the same".
philosophical masturbation

>>7579052
>waste of time to discuss the existence of life in a star less universe
You can't show that starless universes are more likely than star-filled ones.
And by "waste of time" I assume you mean "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LA-LALA-LA"

>>7579052
>nothing to suggest that life can form solely from hydrogen and helium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

File: 1405445215384.jpg (32KB, 300x306px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x306px

>>7579068
why did you link the same post three times

>>7579005
>only elements would be hydrogen and helium
>>7579052
>nothing to suggest that life can form solely from hydrogen and helium

Daily reminder that we know almost nothing about most of the matter in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

>>7579077
>why did you link the same post three times
Because I was responding to three different phrases?

youmustbenewhere.png?

>>7579080
you're hte new one dumbass

you could have just greentexted the passages without putting in new post links

File: 65.png (503KB, 556x720px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 556x720px

>>7579080

>>7579068
>Then you're really just saying "if it were any different, it wouldn't be the same".
philosophical masturbation
I'm setting out the scope of my point. I have absolutely no idea what life other than ours might be like. Neither do you.

>You can't show that starless universes are more likely than star-filled ones.
I'm not attempting to show this. I'm just saying that complex molecules, a prerequisite for life as we know it, cannot form in a starless universe.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>hypothesis
>evidence

>>7579078
There is also no evidence that dark matter impacts life.

How life begins and dark matter are two of many big problems in science and I definitely do not claim to understand either of them.

Both of my statements you have quoted are correct.

The universe isn't fine tuned for life, it's fine tuned for "evolution" in a broad sense. As in, a progression of material complexity in more ways than just a biological concept.

>>7579123
The universe isnt fine tuned for progression in material complexity. It will end in a very simple state not a complex one.

>>7578977
This fucking guy.

What life is, is a system that deals with entropy than your average rubble of atoms. The life you see is the type of system that would best fit the environment it was first in. If it wasn't "fine-tuned" as you said, thatn there would be another type of "life", that would fit in that environment, because that is how physics work you fucking retard.

>inb4 taking the bait
I'm angry today.

>>7579127
that deals with entropy better*

>>7579126
And yet you see material complexity constantly arising throughout the universe.

Entropy is something that only exists within closed systems.

>>7579127
Entropy isn't real, dumbdumb. It's merely a statement about the constructs of closed systems and the consequences of isolating variables. In no way is it indicative of how the universe operates, it's merely a rule of what to expect while observing it in tight parameters.

>>7579133
I'm not sure what you mean by "material complexity"

A progression suggests an increase over time, however at some point the universe will reach its final state of extremely low complexity that will continue on into infinity. Thus the time at the beginning where there was some complexity is insignificant in comparison.

>>7579115
>I have absolutely no idea what life other than ours might be like. Neither do you.
So you agree that *some* form of life in general is nearly inevitable, regardless of the universe's parameters?

>>7579115
>life as we know it,
Still "touching yourself at night" I see.

>>7579115
>>hypothesis
>>evidence
You weren't asking for evidence:
>>7579052
>nothing to suggest that life can form solely...

>>7579087
>you could have just greentexted the passages without putting in new post links
Sigh
try this:
>highlight some text by swiping the mouse cursor with the left button pressed
>click the post number
...now why would I bother to delete the "extra" post numbers?
lrn24chin

>>7579121
>There is also no evidence that dark matter impacts life.
You miss my point entirely.
I'm suggesting "life as we don't know it" imght be made from dark matter.
Yes, it's unlikely, since we presume it's weakly interacting, but my point is we don't know enough about the universe to say baryonic matter is the only possibility for life.

>>7579144
>I'm not sure what you mean by "material complexity"
Well we went from a sea of photons to stars in some way or another. If you've got things like iron, planets, or even life arising, that seems pretty indicative of a trend towards complexity to me.

>however at some point the universe will reach its final state of extremely low complexity that will continue on into infinity.
But how would you gauge something like that? At what point can you say that the Universe has reached a threshold for complexity and is now beginning a trend towards decay?

>>7579152
Or maybe you could just highlight the entire passage and then insert your responses in between each one instead of highlighting and clicking the post number each time.

>fine tuned
Wat. Our existence is a product of the amalgamation of particles in space. The particular type and amount that happened to make up earth defined the biological processes life would need to live and reproduce here.
The environment allowed for very complex and large forms of life and eventually ability for higher thinking.

The universe is "fine tuned" by our perceivable laws of physics to be able to fuse simple elements into heavier ones in stars. The product of the grouping of these elements is just natural evolution of this dimension.

>>7579165
Or I could just do it the way that involves the fewest clicks and keystrokes, Mr. Grammar Nazi

>>7579169
How on earth does reclicking the post number each time somehow reduce the number of keystrokes and clicks compared to what I just said?

Highlighting the entire passage and inserting your own text requires the same number of clicks and looks much nicer.

>>7579155
At the point at which star formation stops and everything begins to decay?

You are aware that space is expanding at an accelerating rate?

>>7579173
>You are aware that space is expanding at an accelerating rate?
Expanding into what, though? We know that our Observable Universe is expanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire Universe is following the same trend.
On top of that, we're also going on the assumption that the theories of physics are static across the Universe and that the outer limits of what we can observe are abiding by precisely the same physics that we do.

One of two things is going on; Either the Universe is on a trend towards decay and we've somehow determined that the entirety of existence is ephemeral, or we're wrong about how physics operates on a Universal scale.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the latter than the former, but you're going to make some staggering metaphysical claims in either direction.

>>7579173
>space is expanding at an accelerating rate

Haha prove it !

>>7579177
>Expanding into what, though?
It's not expanding "into" anything any more than the national debt is expanding "into" something.

>>7579180
You're making objective claims regarding what lies outside of the observable Universe.

That's not science, that's metaphysics.

>>7579182
Outside the observable universe lies the rest of the universe.

The universe doesn't expand 'into' anything. It just expands.

>>7579188
I don't think you have a full grasp of how the term "Observable Universe" relates to the term "Universe".

Or you do understand how they relate to each other, and you're STILL fucking up by making claims about what lies outside of the Observable Universe.

>>7579191
We know what lies outside the observable universe because we know that the universe is infinite and that it is uniform at large scales.

>>7579195
We literally don't know ANY of that. Those are all principles that we follow because they're the safest assumptions, but there is absolutely no way for us to validate a claim like "The forces of nature operate the same in all sections of the Universe".

That is a metaphysical claim. Same goes for the assertion that the universe is isotropic.

>>7579196
>We literally don't know ANY of that.

Actually 'we' as a scientific collective do. As a pop-sci faggot however, it is understandable how you might not know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

>>7579210
Microwave radiation not only tells nothing about 'infinite' universe, but since this radiation is related to big bang and expansion of universe, it denies it's infinities.

>>7579195
we don't "know" that, we extrapolate that based on what we actually know. there's a difference

>>7578907
> Why is the universe fine tuned for life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

File: WMAP 9-year data.png (32KB, 790x463px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 790x463px

>>7579232
>The contents point to a Euclidean flat geometry

If you can't even understand what the wiki says why do you argue?

>>7578907
Think of it the other way around OP

Developing organisms go the path of least resistance. No one knows where it all started though.

>>7579210
You really don't know anything about the cosmological principle.

I'm not saying you're wrong.I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying that there is a lot being assumed when you claim the universe is uniform and that the laws of physics are consistent in all its corners. This isn't "pop science",this is a core philosophical understanding of astronomy.

rare
adjective
(of an event, situation, or condition) can only occur with the help of God.

>>7578907
Because multiverse hypothesis.
Next.