Sean Carroll - Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed

My digital piano doesn't need tuning. It's a miracle !

This was beautiful. Thank you.

I like his perspective

"Let me give you the wrong answer to that." That's brilliant. I have to try and use that some time. So there is counter argument, question, and give the wrong answer, or even a wronger answer.

The real question for theists is "How would a universe NOT created by a god differ from the one we already inhabit?" It couldn't be any less than what we have, or it would be unstable and we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.

What is the probability that we exist in a fine tuned universe by chance vs the probability that we exist as a Boltzmann brain?

Sean is the best, thank you for taking the time to communicate with us the public. We really really appreciate it.

Since these constants can be tweaked and life will still exist (they don’t have to be precise and there acceptable ranges) aren’t there an infinite amount of values they could be and there would still be no problem? I’m not sure what I’m missing.

Sean is my favourite

I've heard many arguments concerning fine tuning. In virtually every argument, regardless of which side of the fence the speaker may be on, there is some degree of separation the speaker inadvertently places between us and the rest of the universe. It's often subtle, but not always. The phrasing, be it subtle or otherwise, implies that there is the universe, and then there is us looking back at it or riding a sort of rail above it, etc. Sometimes hard to hear, but it's in there. When you work to eliminate that separation, sometimes very difficult to do, you end up with a very different conversation. It takes speaking in terms of everything that happens being part of the functions and properties of the universe. Just a observation I made that I find interesting.

Liking how Sean tackles these questions, very clear and direct, great to listen to.

3:00. Giving the story of the relationship and development between the mass of the electron and humankind, and all the things inbetween, that is the general project of science.

Calling it “fine-tuned” assumes a “tuner.” It’s a circular argument.

What if, we are a simulation of an entity that lives in a universe that is fine tuned for themselves ? so someone creted them as well ? or a mix of the 4 options?

People who claim “fine-tuning” to be a “thing”, are looking it from the unlikely angle, where god/god-like creature dictated the “initial parameters”, whereas logically thinking, everything that is/ exists, has been dictated by the initial parameters regardless of, if there was “a designer” for this location & time.

I think a simple probability question, like what is the chance for chaotic useless mass of combined materials forming a useful product within a period of time could be of great help.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Anthropic principle best explains it, in the space of infinity a single roll that works is all that is needed.

Leaving aside the issue of human existence, few really deny that the odds against the cosmological constants being just perfectly aligned by mere chance is so vastly improbable, that it shouldn't be taken as the most likely reason.

with constants and laws of nature described by mathematics; would human discovery of math argue that there is not fine tuning of universe, while human invention of math could argue for fine tuning of universe through use of math?

Different laws of physics would give rise to different life forms as long as those laws allow for environments substantially away from equilibrium.