there are something like 30 universal constants all with precise values. the masses of certain particles, the strength of certain forces, etc. we've measured these to a degree of precision.
there is no known reason as to WHY they are set at the values they are.furthermore, it has been observed that, for a fair number of these constants, if the values were even slightly different from what they actually are, that the universe would be radically different. things like the inability of protons and neutrons to come together and form atoms, thus preventing any complex structure in the universe and life itself.the fact that the constants are so finely tuned has prompted religious nuts to proclaim this as clear evidence that a god exists, because 'he designed the universe so perfectly fine tuned so as to support complex structure and life.' if you are atheist, you reject this, and are left with the curious reality that our universe is indeed fine tuned to support complex structure and thus life. except you don't have an explanation, which is problematic.the idea is, at the time of the big bang, a very large number of parallel universes all exploded from a single point, each of these universes having a different combination of values for the universal constants. much like the way we live on earth not because it was designed for us but because we wouldn't have evolved elsewhere, we exist in this universe not because it was designed for us but because the other universes were unsuitable to support life. in this multiverse, life happens somewhere, and it happens where it is most likely: this universe, this planet.my theory extrapolates further on this: why only have multiple universes that merely tweak the values of fixed functions? why not have universes with a completely different set of functions entirely?thus, any possible universe that can exist, does exist.couple with the many worlds theory, and you have such an incredibly vast and most likely infinite number of universes, that everything you could conceivably imagine exists somewhere. that is inclusive of every work of fiction, every religion, every daydream and nightmare, everything. that is the nature of an infinite 'soup' of possibilities. something about an infinite number of monkeys and the works of shakespeare. even if experimentation has shown that the monkeys mostly produce pages consisting entirely of the letter 's.' which ironically mirrors the theory, as most of the universes would likewise be rather uninteresting, consisting of a blob of energy which the rules of that universe prevent from collapsing into interesting or complex structure.
Read up on elementary probability, Ockham's Razor, degree-level cosmology and how to form a scientific argument because right now, you're misunderstanding all four.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrongJust throwing this out there. "I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution." Or this thread.
first of all, this is more of a mix of philosophical and scientific. philosophy with a basis in simple physical observations.
i'll state my defense of the possibility of changing constants once more. if you still don't get it maybe i'll draw a graph for you.the universe has existed for what, 13, 14 billion years, starting with the big bang. it is known that big changes in the physical laws of the universe took place very early on.but still, even if you account for fluctuating constants, we've only had 14 billion years for all the constants to fall into the right range. if only ONE of those constants, per it's changing nature, moves outside of it's acceptable range, life as we know it goes POOF into a cloud of energy, among possible outcomes of such a catastrophic event. so the constants need to be changing enough so that they fell into their respective ranges at the same time via the laws of probability, but not so much that they then proceed to move on from those values and cause life to cease to exist.therefore, i find your argument on how a singular universe is not actually finely-tuned to be flawed: even if we take into account fluctuating values, the probability is still VERY SMALL, and per your argument, we only had one chance to get it right. This is indeed a finely tuned universe.i'd give you a little credit if the universe regularly collapsed and exploded again, but we know that the universe is going to expand forever, so kinda doesn't leave you much to stand on there.now instead of criticizing an imagined lack of understanding or my lack of capital letters why don't you respond to this argument and tell me how i'm wrong. otherwise you can remove yourself from my blog.and on ockham's razor, seeing as you are mostly arguing on the science part with your 'physics degree'
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[4][7] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[6][7][8][9]