The most natural and least specific explanation of the universe is that the universe is a random noise machine. And eventually you get highly specific configurations that pop up by pure chance.

>>16716917 (OP)
Sorry, but the math doesn't work. The tuning we see is too improbable. The most logical explanation for this universe as we presently understand it is that it was designed.
(Cue the atheists asking me to believe in infinite parallel universes nobody has ever seen, and for which we have absolutely zero evidence.)

>>16716971
No, it isn't. No matter how many explanations someone can come up with it comes down to
>well where did X come from?
>>X came from Y
>well where did Y come from?
>>Well Y came from Z
At some point there is a fundamental origin of everything. Where you have to ask why does something exist rather than nothing?

And that nothing isn't the vacuum of space (which is something) nor any type of quantum field which is something, nor any type of creator myth (yes myth) which is something.

True nothing, null, void.

Either some fundamental something always existed, or some fundamental something popped into existence from literal nothing. And both those options may actually be the same thing, since it's hard to apply a concept of before or sequence of events when time doesn't exist. Eg nothing -> something -> something always existed -> universe bootstraps itself into existence

>>16716979
I don't agree with anon that fine-tuning necessarily leads to God, but anon is right: the universe is way too fine-tuned. Just look at all of the physical constants. If something, for example, if the cosmological constant was slightly larger, nothing would be able to form in the universe because gravity wouldn't be able to put things together. If the cosmological constant was smaller, the universe would collapse on itself because of gravity.

Also, you mentioned why something exists rather than nothing, but why does logic work at all? Why aren't there contradictions in the universe?

The problem with the idea that something is always existing. Is that even possible? Is time something created? We see time dilation in space, so we know time isn't something simple across the universe.

Is even absolutely nothing possible? We've never seen nothing before; even the vacuum of space is a quantum field.

While I am religious more for cultural reasons and my family. I don't have faith. It doesn't affect my scientific opinions.

And oh no, I'm getting existential depression again that nothing matters.

>>16716971
>it's too improbable!!
Improbable things happen all the fucking time. Why should this be any different?

>>16717119
It isn't fine tuned in the way you are thinking about. It isnt any more unusual for you to play and win 100 million dollars in lotto - because *someone* has to win, people win all the time, just never me.

Life as we know it adapted to this universe, or rather arose out of their environment. You dont know what would happen in other environments, other universes, its just speculation based on humanity. Even chemical interactions may end up vastly different, so you cant just say "well if X was different then.. ".

Its also the assumption ours is the only universe, that universes did not come before and wont come after with different conditions, that no universes exist beyound the boundary of ours, that branes dont exist etc.

>Is even absolutely nothing possible?
Yes, because we are living it right now, even if you said this universe is a simulation, still doesnt matter, the 'real' universe had to either have a beginning (or always existed), you are just pushing the problem back a layer, but you will always arrive at the same fundamental problem.

The fundamental basis for reality, either X always existed, or X arose out of literally nothing. Time before time exists is simply undefined, it doesnt matter "how long" it would take, it just happens.

>>16716971
"Fine-tuning" is literally textbook anthropic principle

>>16717248
Statistically, life in the universe is more unlikely than any lottery. I don't see how life had to exist in the universe the same way someone has to win the lottery. The universe has existed for probably at least 13 billion years, but we have no evidence of any life outside of Earth's orbit. No aliens came to visit Earth in that time. We are the only animals that are conscious and intelligent (at least for the most part) out of the millions of species on Earth. Life as it developed on Earth was really specific too: carbon-based, nitrogen, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, DNA, and water. Likewise, it's not that I don't believe aliens don't exist. There are plenty of other ways life could have developed across the universe: subterranean oceans, silicone-based life, liquid methane instead of water, etc but that's through speculation. Speculation isn't always bad

Out of all of the galaxies, planetary systems, suns, planets, etc., it seems very unlikely that aliens don't exist. I think the anthropic principle is important; that's why I don't put a fine-tuned universe towards a god, a simulation, etc., or anything like that. I don't know. I don't know why the universe is fine-tuned like this, but it is fine-tuned.

It's not just life. It's to the point that if some measurements of the universe were changed, the universe would collapse or atoms wouldn't be able to form, like with the fine-structure constant; if it were different, atoms could combine, or there would be no stable atoms.

Yes, I agree that's a possibility; there could be a multiverse or a cyclic model. I don't really disagree.

>Yes,

But then you would also need to explain why the universe created itself as it is from literally nothing. Time, logic, etc., The closest we've ever observed to nothing is a quantum vacuum state, which still has energy. Nothing should work without time.

I'm going to go to sleep. I'll open this thread back up in the morning. Nice talking to you, though. :)

there is a big "if" buried in your post, OP: it assumes the objective existence of stochasms, but it's not actually clear that probability exists outside of observers, and the degree to which something like quantun physics actually is or isn't non-deterministic. "simplest is always most likely" is not a universal property.

>>16717315
Well no, you're applying human concepts, with a bunch of assumptions, all of the assumptions for fermis "paradox" are all wrong. Let's start with the simplest; statistically speaking the chance for life in the universe is 100%, and there is no argument against this. We are here, we are life. Simple as.
>The chance for a second form of life to form after the first formed is much lower!
I hear you cry, but no, it isn't. That's the gamblers fallacy and it's like me flipping a coin and getting heads and you telling me my chance to get heads again is only 25%. Each event is independent, it's 50%. This also is under the assumption that Earth based life is the first.
>quantum vacuum energy
Well, no, that is something and not nothing. There's no reason something cannot arise out of true nothing and may in fact be inevitable - there is no time for time to pass, there is no "waiting" game to play to wait for something to happen, there are no constraints, no "laws" of physics, nothing. It happens in the span of no time, so time is undefined and has no meaning outside of spacetime.

Either you can accept something came from nothing, or something always existed with no beginning, no end, no explanation for its creation it simply always was and came from "nowhere", or you can accept they are both the same thing. Sooner or later you have to accept the fact the universe (even if it's not ours it ours is not the 1st/original. Or we are in a simulation etc) simply bootstraps itself into existence.

There is no satisfactory answer, as there is no "why" at that stage.

>Why is there something rather than nothing
Because nothing has no limits, no constraints, no rules, no age, and can allow for anything to happen

Bro we only get 7 fucking musical notes of "noise".
C,D,E,F,G,A,B
Hell we only get three colors, RGB.
This universe is the baby slop universe. We need to ascend yall.

What? I'm new to this board. It all seems like conjective schizobabble

>>16717443
>statistically speaking the chance for life in the universe is 100
lol
>Each event is independent, it's 50%
lmao

>>16717482
>red is due to come up I can feel it
>t. midwit gambleholic

>>16717472
>It all seems like conjective schizobabble
That's the entire board minus (some of) the math threads

>>16717443
>can allow for anything to happen
So it has an attribute?

>>16717156
I don't think you understand how staggeringly impossible this is.

>>16717542
No, no attributes, literal nothing, no restrictions, no laws of physics, nothing. Think about why something exists rather than nothing. Did something always exist? Or did it it come from nothing? There's no satisfactory answer to why. There's plenty of other things to discover, and probably multiple layers prior to the beginning of our universe we don't know about, but it still goes back to the most fundamental something.

>>16717549
It already happened though

>>16717571
>It already happened though
Which makes the most likely explanation that it had a designer.

>>16717568
There is a satisfactory answer, you are lazy or stupid. There is no satisfactory answer as to which.
So if there is no attribute then it can't have an attribute to allow for anything to happen.

>>16717575
There's no restrictions or universal laws to stop something from happening, and no, there is no satisfactory answer as to why. If the most fundamental something is quantum foam, then either it always existed or it came from nothing. Why becomes meaningless.

>>16717585
>There's no restrictions or universal laws to stop something from happening
Oh yeah? What's the biggest flying animal, and why aren't there bigger ones? Hint: we know the answer. Well, I shouldn't say we because I doubt you do.

Define existence

>>16717588
An event having a well-defined spacetime interval described by a minkowski metric.

>>16717586
Doesn't matter, we live on Earth constrained by certain rules, materials, environment etc. Earth is something, in a universe which is something, not literal nothing

>>16716971
There is nothing about the universe that looks fine tuned

>>16717594
I guess time travel exists. So do warp drives.

>>16716979
>u
Look into pantheism, you won't be dissapointed

>>16716917 (OP)
If you think your barin has the complexity to be able to understand how something like the universe works, you are delusional. How can a human brain, which only has the complexity of -- a human brain understand the universe? In second order cybernetics, a key tenet is that the observer is part of the system. If you were to understand the universe, you would not only have to understand everything that isn't you and how it all works together but understand your understanding of it. It's an infinite feedback loop. We can't understand the universe. Stop trying

Why does everyone talk about "fine-tuned"?
What presupposed andom number generator are you talking about?
Do you have any proof that this process exists at all?

When Einstein said God does not play dice he genuisly pointed out that the Christian creator were not generating random numbers until a working set of numbers popped up, if he existed, and that if he did not exist there was no evidence the universe we are in was the result of a random process.

You are retards