Not so long ago, it was scientific dogma that all life on this planet was dependent upon photosynthesis. Then some oceanographer types sent some cameras down to the sea floor to look at some hydrothermal vents and... there went that idea! Is our universe tuned for life or is life tuned to its universe?
That would be a great comparison if the many worlds hypothesis were proven or even provable. As it stands, it is basically just a belief which is held to explain the scientific facts. Not much different from ancient man's belief that spirits had influence over the weather cycle. Check out https://strangenotions.com/flew/
Many worlds is an interpretation of quantum uncertainly, but what we seem to be talking about here are multiverse theories.
One of these, M-Theory is an extension of string theory and is the only theory known to elegantly unify quantum mechanics with general relativity's gravitational force in a mathematically consistent way. It’s not supported by experimental evidence yet, but I’d hardly characterise it as no different from belief in spirits.
Actually, I _am_ referring to 'many worlds' (at least according to the technical explanation in this article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/26/...) and not a multiverse. And yes, there is some hope that there will be some testable empirical evidence at some point, but if in the end it turns out that there are not 'many worlds', then I don't see that big a difference. I'd love it if there were parallel dimensions but it is fantasy at this point.
When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.
In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.
The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' "
To be fair it's not the same thing at all - because the whole point of the article is that by all accounts we shouldn't fit into the hole we're in, we should have been wiped out of our hole long we even had a chance to evolve by comets, asteroids, ice ages, volcanic events or a multitude of other phenomena poised to end life as we know it. That's really what the article is about; sort of a 'humanity, it's improbable that you managed to evolve at all'
Doesn't that break down due to a total measurement bias? That is, if the universe were not tuned for life, there would be no-one around to wonder why that is the case.
Isn't that just the anthropic principle? That's another explanation for a life friendly universe, but not something that can be proved or taken as proof.
But you wouldn't post such things on another day, on another thread, on a topic unrelated. Hacker news and the commenters here are not gods finely tuning comments.
Sure, that's the motivation some atheists have in believing or at least entertaining the idea of a multiverse, but ultimately, it does relatively little to advance atheism, and not just because of its intractability. Fine tuning is an interesting thing to ponder, and certainly a single universe that is finely tuned could lend some support to divine intent, but the real arguments for the existence of God do not hinge on fine tuning or probabilities or any of the standard fare of young earth creationists and the like that philistines like Dawkins enjoy dumping on. The best arguments demonstrate God's existence as a necessary fact following from evident premises. (Btw, Edward Feser has recently publishes a book, "Five Proofs of the Existence of God", on the subject, selecting five that he holds to be particularly important.)
