Originally Posted by
okie
I'm a creationist, so none of that needs any further explanation in my worldview. The universe is fine tuned to support life because it was designed to do so from the outset.
In my view, things are somewhat limited.Someone who believes in anthropic principle might think there are alternate worlds where you have non carbon based lifeforms, for example, but in my view the nature of our universe is as mathematically predetermined as two following one. In other words, it's not mere chance that makes it seem like our universe is fine tuned, ruling out survivorship bias. In simplistic terms, I think that's as ridiculous as arguing that the number two fits perfectly between one and three as a matter of chance, and two's view that numbers are by chance arranged for its benefit, when it simply couldn't be any other way.
I also don't believe in nature. In my view, nothing is natural. The universe in my opinion is an artificially created environment made up of encoded information, not so different from what we might think of as a holographic interface with many layers of code all operating in unison as a single ecosystem. How anyone can look at DNA and see anything other than self replicating machines is beyond me. To me, it's abundantly clear that we're someone's androids. And this thing we call dimension is basically just layers of code behind the graphical interface we experience as spatial, chronological reality.
Otherwise put, let's say you could program sentient beings in a virtual world that exists only in a computer. And then they sit around arguing about where they came from, ultimately concluding they must have evolved by random chance from elements of their environment, but always plagued by that realization that everything around them is just a little too perfect to be mere chance.
I think cosmology bears this out more than anything. Take the moon, for example. If it weren't there, we would be bombarded with asteroids. But if it were a tiny bit closer, the tides would wash over all the land mass of the earth every day. If it were a tiny bit further away, we would have no tides, and have no weather, making the earth a desolate place. And somehow that all just so happens to work out that the moon perfectly covers the sun to make eclipses, while simultaneously the earth perfectly covers the moon to make blood moons. If either were a fraction of a percent smaller or larger, that wouldn't work, or if the distances were any different. And that's incredibly remarkable, because the distance between celestial bodies is always changing. Not too long ago, the moon was ostensibly closer to the earth, and not too long from now it will be too far. So not only do you have to believe that by chance the solar system is set up in such a way to support life, but that we just so happen to live in a very brief window of time in which all these things also work out to make eclipses possible. And as far as I know, there's no other solar system with anything like that anywhere else.
And if the sun were a tiny bit larger, it would set us on fire, tiny bit smaller we would freeze. From our perspective, our planet has extreme weather, but conditions here actually fall within a very, very narrow range. So it's kind of like a bunch of people sitting in a climate controlled room all marveling at what a coincidence it is that the temperature in there just so happens to be to their liking, all while vehemently denying the existence of the thermostat on the wall.
Bookmarks