Fine tuning of the universe

@ElRengo Remember any odds can be given based on mathematics. So they can become irrelevant at a certain point where reason takes over. And the odds of just one of these things happening are astronomical let alone a thousand or a million parameters when you consider the structure of the cell and other things in our universe

@Axeroberts
Reason as "rationality" (the language based and the common sense one) haves a quite weak role in Scientific inference.
Math is one cognitive tool, a useful one.
And complexity is certainly all over,

But to attribute this to "something else" is not a scientific assumption.
I personally have faith based believes.
But I know that there are not and probably can´t be solid / serious "proves" to confirm or denny them.

@ElRengo so true about belief. To believe that we have overcome the odds is a valid belief. The same as saying it was created. They are both valid belief's from each person's point of view. I [i]believe[/i] that's both fair

@Axeroberts
True about believes.
The only problems are that believes are only validated by the same believe and they only can validate the believe.
In other words, the world haves no obligation to take them in account to be as it is, known or not, so if we believe it or we don´t.
And that MAKES a difference in a description of how things are, as best descriptions of them seem to be the scientific ones.
Or at least quite better than all what was said by believes for the previous millenia.

@ElRengo some beliefs are because of personal experience. to which there are no odds i might add

@Axeroberts
True.
And that´s why personal experiences and scientific research have different pertinence.
Scientific "laws" do not describe nor predict accurately singular / individual phenomena (the Caeterīs pāribus clause implicit in all of them).
And personal experience / witness is rarelly if ever a solid fundation for a wider description of the Universe or even for significative parts of it.

@ElRengo but just as valid to the person. If not more so than any other way

@Axeroberts
That´s what I´ve said.
Valid for the person.
May be also valid for other persons.
Even valid if shared by all humans.
And still they MAY lack of ONE kind of validity.
The one given by the things in itselves reffered by such believes.
To say it in other words, apples felt previous to Newton.

@ElRengo well there are many on both sides of the fence. lol

@Axeroberts
And all of them have full right to believe what they do believe.

@ElRengo

[quote]"Fine Tunning" is a biased concept that ignores that no mater how improbable is an event, it´s "probability" is 1 by when it happens.[/quote]

No.

It's based upon looking at what even slight differences in the fundamental physical constants would mean to "a Universe as we know it".

Yes, we DO have the values we have, but the point is that [b]fulfilling the anthropological principle actually is quite hard[/b], if you consider an [i]n[/i]-dimensional space where each of these constants can take on a range of values ([i]à la[/i] the [i]Mr. Tompkins[/i] stories).

Sure, we ARE here; but asking what range of variations of the "constants" still gives us...well..."us", with the Universe we see...it's a valid question and the results are sobering.

And it's "fine tu[u]n[/u]ing", like an instrument, not

[quote]"Fine Tu[u]nn[/u]ing"[/quote]