The Cosmos

07
Mar

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?

ONE night in June 2007, I got to watch astronomer Sandra Faber put the 10-meter Keck II telescope through its paces. She was observing galaxies in a region of the sky called the Extended Groth Strip, in the direction of the constellation Ursa Major. We sat in the cozy confines of the telescope control room, far below the telescope’s perch near the 13,796-foot-high summit of the Mauna Kea volcano in Hawaii.

Around midnight, Faber wrapped up her observations and we stepped out for a few minutes under the night sky. “I take comfort in the fact that it is a beautiful universe, and we belong here and that we fit,” Faber mused. “This is our home.”

Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.

Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.

This challenge became even tougher in the late 1990s when astronomers discovered dark energy, the little-understood energy thought to be driving the accelerating expansion of our universe. All attempts to use known laws of physics to calculate the expected value of this energy lead to answers that are 10120 times too high, causing some to label it the worst prediction in physics.

“The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, at a 2007 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that’s the mystery.” Even a slightly larger value of dark energy would have caused spacetime to expand so fast that galaxies wouldn’t have formed.

That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

“The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

This ensemble would be the multiverse. In a multiverse, the laws of physics and the values of physical parameters like dark energy would be different in each universe, each the outcome of some random pull on the cosmic slot machine. We just happened to luck into a universe that is conducive to life. After all, if our corner of the multiverse were hostile to life, Faber and I wouldn’t be around to ponder these questions under stars.

This “anthropic principle” infuriates many physicists, for it implies that we cannot really explain our universe from first principles. “It’s an argument that sometimes I find distasteful, from a personal perspective,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, author of A Universe From Nothing. “I’d like to be able to understand why the universe is the way it is, without resorting to this randomness.”

And he’s not the only one who feels this way. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin once told me, “I would, and most physicists would, prefer not to have to rely on anything like the anthropic principle, but actually to be able to calculate things.”

Nonetheless, there is growing and grudging acceptance of the multiverse, especially because it is predicted by a theory that was developed to solve one of the most frustrating of fine-tuning problems of all—the flatness of our universe.

Spacetime today is flat, not curved—meaning that two rays of light that start out parallel stay parallel, neither converging nor diverging. This has been confirmed to exquisite precision by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the radiation left over from the big bang. That means that a cosmological parameter called Omega, which dials in the curvature of spacetime, is very close to one. But for today’s universe to have an Omega anywhere near one, its value just one second after the big bang had to be exactly one to precision of about fourteen decimal places. This smacked of fine-tuning.

But in 1979, the physicist Alan Guth, now of MIT, discovered a way to get that value of Omega without fine-tuning. Guth showed that in the instants after the big bang, the universe would have undergone a period of exponential expansion. This sudden expansion, which Guth called “inflation,” would have rendered our observable universe flat regardless of the value of Omega before inflation began.

Imagine starting with a small balloon whose surface is curved and blowing it up some forty orders of magnitude. Any small piece of the balloon’s surface will now look flat. In the inflationary view, that’s what happened to our universe—our local patch of spacetime looks flat regardless of the curvature of spacetime before inflation began.

Some physicists believe that inflation continues today in distant pockets of spacetime, generating one new universe after another, each with different physical properties. Inflation, therefore, walks both sides of the fine-tuning line: It lends credence to the anthropic principle by predicting a multiverse, but it also reminds us that parameters we once thought were fine-tuned, like Omega, can be explained by a more fundamental theory. “The history of physics has had that a lot,” says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

We’ll gain such perspective only after we have a fundamental theory of everything—or perhaps when we detect signs of other universes. The urge to understand our universe from first principles and not ascribe it to some divine force compels us to seek scientific explanations for what seems to be an incredible stroke of luck.

Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

FQXi: The Patchwork Multiverse
Raphael Buosso examines links between string theory, dark energy, and the multiverse.

FQXi: Testing the Multiverse
Hiranya Peiris looks for evidence of other universes in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Skeptical Inquirer: Anthropic Design: Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose?
Victor Stenger provides a critical analysis of the “so-called anthropic coincidences.”

TED: Why Is Our Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
In this video, Brian Greene asks why our universe appears so exquisitely tuned for life.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

aananthaswamy-big

Anil Ananthaswamy

    Anil Ananthaswamy tries to exist in a quantum superposition of lives in Berkeley, CA, and Bangalore, India. A former deputy news editor and now consultant for New Scientist magazine, Anil is also the author of The Edge of Physics, an extreme physics travelogue. He studied electronics and electrical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India, and the University of Washington, Seattle, and trained as a journalist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=701080210 Dale Kupina

      Strange as it seems ….if Faber is a true atheist…why even raise the possibility of a God ? That was truly and interesting assumption lol.

      • Scottfchr

        I don’t think he was truly raising the possibility of God, other than as a counterpoint to illustrated what he believes is the true probability.

        • Scottfchr

          *illustrate

        • Kate Taylor

          Faber is a not a “he.” And, I think she is being hypocritical by mentioning God, yet perhaps her spirit, which I is I believe who “we” truly are, was trying to tell her something via the Holy Spirit/God. (It is interesting that other “religions” also believe in the concept of spirit.. the Hindus view the body as a vehicle we travel around in until we “kick the frame,” which is how many of them view the death of the body.)

          • Scottfchr

            Pardon my pronoun.

          • Fleetwolf2

            Kate, I believe you may be blurring the already sometimes blurry line between religion and philosophy…And my belief in your blurring is based in neither science, religion nor philosophy. It’s just a belief, it doesn’t have to be attached to or defined by anything to have a possible validity. Should also point out that Faber’s reference to a higher power is not hypocrisy, it is simply honest scientific methodology where if one is to assign causation you must consider all possibilities. Once you have all the possibilities you assign probabilities…her method allows god is a possibility but assigns it a very low probability. That’s just honest science, not hypocrisy.

            • kate taylor

              I see your point on her not being a hypocrite.. I felt a bit sorry I “labeled” her as such after I posted it. And, I later posted a link for her, if she were to read it her idea of the probability of God might go up a “tad.” I can pray it does. I don’t agree with all the social views of the scientist who is on the link, but he’s given me plenty to consider.. I’d never heard a Christian rebuttal to the inflation/multi-verse theory before I read him.

            • Dennis F.

              Kate, don’t listen to “Fleetwolf”. As an atheist, Faber is both condescending to religion and pretending to be impartial when she mentions God as an answer. I have read this entire thread, and I admire and respect your position. Read my reply to Wolfy (people shouldn’t be afraid to use their real names) to hear my ideas on this. Have a nice day.

            • Kate Taylor

              Thanks Dennis, I liked what you wrote, and it helped me.

            • Dennis F.

              Ahh, Wolfy… no man is an island. All of your beliefs are based in something. Were you

              created fully formed in a big-bang scenario?

              You are a product of your upbringing, education and society. Sorry, you can’t escape it.
              Your beliefs do not stand on their own. That would make you a deity, which I suspect you

              don’t believe in. Come on, join us all in the pool, it’s fun!

              As for the blurring of disciplines you accused Kate of doing, you, sir, are an old-

              fashioned “seperatist”. All the disciplines have neat boxes around them and like a

              kindergarten teacher of old, you want everyone to stay inside the lines. This is not how

              it is. Philosophy and religion have always been intertwined – ever hear of Theology? And

              now science is finally realizing that that many of the things they are discovering point to

              a higher intelligence. The Everything Theory – sounds like God to me.

              Now, to your defense of Faber, Pish-Posh! You are obviously inserting your bias when

              describing her motivations. There’s nothing in the article to support your claim for her

              “honest scientific methodology” in the assigning of probabilities and the elimination of

              God as an answer. In fact, the author writes that for Faber, “as an atheist, divine

              intervention is not the answer.” She has dismissed “God” OUTRIGHT. Atheism is her method,

              not true open-mindedness. So I agree with Kate: this makes her namedropping of God either

              condescending lip-service or a disingenuous attempt at impartiality. In short, a

              HYPOCRITE.

              Now I’m not saying she is a bad scientist, but science only goes so far. And there are

              numerous scientists who agree with me and believe that a higher intelligence, or God, has

              created the laws of the universe and sparked life into being. And these are mainstream,

              respected, credentialed people who have honestly and open-mindedly (word?) come to their

              conclusions through years of study and analysis that they cannot exclude God from the

              answer ( don’t ask me for names – do your own research ).

              I am 50 yrs old. I studied science in my younger days and was vehemently anti-God. Over the

              years I have kept abreast of all the new discoveries and theories in biology and cosmology.

              But most importantly I have worked to keep a curious, critical and open mind. After years

              of questioning and going back and forth between science and God, I have come to the

              conclusion that God made the universe. So many scientists say that God doesn’t belong in

              science. I agree. God transcends science. I think it’s a good thing to study the world

              and universe and find out how it works. With every new discovery, it makes the universe

              even more amazing and mysterious. For me, it’s more evidence of my belief in the higher

              intelligence. Logic is only one part of the universe, and it is being shaken by so many

              new discoveries that are overturning strongly held scientific theories, so much so that it

              seems scientists are scrambling to come up with new ones every week. Multiverse. Why is

              that more valid than a huge turtle holding up the universe? All just different ways to

              tell the same story – - – God.

              When you let go of the ego, you will see clearly.

          • Anonymous

            Believing in a “spirit” is human nature for many. We all bring our personalities to the fray of being alive. Many people believe in ghosts, too. People used to participate in sceances. I know you wouldn’t think the Holy Spirit was convicting those folks, would you?

      • Cfo

        Because good scientists keep an open mind without definitive evidence one way or the other.

    • Rickwo

      Just finished reading Evolution and the Emergent Self: The Rise of Complexity and Behavioral Versatility in Nature by Raymond Neubauer. It goes further with the idea that life, and indeed intelligent life, follow necessarily from the structure and laws of the universe. Like most such works, it ends with an annoying, mealy-mouthed, say-nothing nod to the fact that some people need to have a mythological deity that personally cares about us. The concepts are beautiful without such mythology and in fact the mythology, by arbitrarily and illogically removing the mystery, makes the universe much less interesting and beautiful.

      • Kate Taylor

        I love life in the here and now, but, I’d say the greater mystery lies beyond the physical.. if there is nothing it will not matter, if there is, I want to be where the fun is. (If there is no fun, “God” and I need to have a long talk.) And, I am not annoyed by those who do not believe in God, I always say atheism is its OWN belief system.. its own “religion.”

        • Scottfchr

          Atheism. is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief.

          • Kate Taylor

            An atheist believes there is nothing after death, and they believe there is no “God.” So, it takes a certain type of “faith” to NOT believe in something, therefore it is a belief system, and a type of “religion,” I feel. However, I certainly appreciate anyone’s right to have a different opinion.

            • Scottfchr

              Atheism is the rational position based on a lack of empirical evidence or direct observation of God.

            • Sue Terwillger

              If “not believing in God” is faith, then so is “not believing in unicorns”.

            • Kate Taylor

              Perhaps Sue, yet it takes a “belief system” to believe something does not exist, and the dictionary defines religion, in part, as a “belief system.” And, I feel atheists make humanism, which the dictionary defines as a system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than supernatural matters,” their “god,” thus causing atheism to become a type of “religion.” And, no one can prove God does not exist.. to say one has to prove He does, is not the point. Those who believe they “know” God don’t feel the need to prove His existence, but they do feel the need to share what they believe. I suppose much like those who do not believe want to share their lack of faith in Him.

            • Sue Terwilliger

              Atheism is “not believing in a God.” Socrates was considered an atheist because he didn’t believe in the Greek Gods. For me, it takes no more “faith” not to believe in God than it does for you not to believe in Zeus. It’s just hard for you to understand that because God is so important to you.
              There are many definitions of religion – most professors consider that there has to be an element of belief in something supernatural. If you want to call humanism a religion because it provides a system of values to live by, I won’t argue with that, but MOST of those values, such as helping others, are the same ones you have. You believe they came from God; we believe they’re just the right thing to do.
              Humanists do NOT in any way worship humans – we more than anyone realize that humans are just a blip in the universe on our “pale blue dot” of a planet. We are just as capable of experiencing awe and beauty as theist, but we attribute them to nature. We believe this is the only life we will ever have and that we should make the most of it.
              No one claims we can prove that God does not exist, just that we can’t prove that God does exist. We have no desire to convince you not to believe.

            • Anonymous

              Belief “system” means more than saying “I believe there are no UFOs”. In order for disbelief of UFOs to be a “belief system” there would be more involved than simple DISbelief. Surely you acknowledge that the belief system of CHristianity involves more than simply believing in Jesus, correct? Even Satan, as they say, believed Jesus is God. DOes that make Satan a Christian?

            • Origami

              Well yes!!
              Great insight!

            • Origami

              Him???

            • Zogz

              Take a look at this quote from the text:
              That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

              “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.
              Notice the influence of atheism on her reasoning. Faber retreated into the multiverse theory purely because of her atheistic belief without any scientific evidence. She is not following scientific evidence, but imposing her own views onto the evidence. Who cares if atheism is technically considered a religion or not. Bias can still come from it.
              The real problem here is that people have elevated science to a religion. If one really wants to do science correctly, it has to be under the influence of philosophy. Note what Jacques Maritain has to say in an Introduction to Philosophy: “Since the principles of philosophy (the first philosophy or metaphysics) are the absolutely first principles of all human knowledge, the principles or postulates of all human sciences are in a certain sense dependent upon them.”
              Philosophy has proved that there must be a god. Therefore, if science suggests that there must be an intelligent designer of the universe, we should rejoice that the evidence is corroborated by philosophy, not retreat in the other direction.

            • Anonymous

              Atheists do not believe in God. To twist the sentence to “they BELIEVE there is no God” simply is a Christian way of thumbing your nose at someone and saying “see, see see, you DO believe in something, it’s your BELIEF system”. Christians do it all the time and it makes them look bad. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but not to their own set of facts, and atheism is not a religion and has no “belief” system.

          • tim

            Atheism also takes the mystery out. We do not live in a one dementinal Universe.

            • Ian

              Not at all, Tim. As science solves the little ‘m’ mysteries of the universe, the big ‘M’ Mystery of Life, the Universe and Everything grows ever richer and more fascinating to contemplate.

          • dconklin

            Atheists believe that there is no God. After looking at all of the definitions of the religions of mankind (collected over 250 definitions) I figured that the only way they can all agree is to say that religion is our value construct of reality. And everyone has to have one in order to function.

        • Anonymous

          I’m a Christian, myself. It works for me.

          The idea that atheism is a form of religion strikes me as, ah, less than thoughtful.

          OTOH, just as there are religious fundamentalists whoi think that all of reality is contained in scripture, there are “fact fundamentalists” who believe all of reality is contained in the five senses.

          It is my experience that the vast majority of people do not subscribe to either limited view, and accept that reality consists both of fact stuff and spiritual stuff.

          • Anonymous

            I agree and when I see Christians state that atheism is a religion, to me it looks as if they are saying that as a perjorative. They’re basically saying saying atheists are incorrect about themselves, and that they (they Christians), are right again!

            • Timtheinnocent

              Interesting. I think they are saying that everyone comes to a subject of study with a bias. That bias is formed in part by a belief system that is recognized as a persons ‘world view.’ ‘Atheism,’ is by definition the belief in the non-existence of God and therefore no answer leading to God’s existence is ever acceptable. However it is to our benefit that scientists maintain the inquiry as every step they take leaves the believer with more to marvel.

            • Joe

              Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of God. It is the non-belief in the existence of God. They are very different. Atheism does indeed accept the possibility of a God, but that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a God.

          • Kate Taylor

            So, because I had never heard another Christian say they thought atheism was a religion, I came to this opinion on my own. But after you so gently pointed out I was less than thoughtful, I wondered if I were the ONLY Christian to think this way.. apparently I am not. But of course, this does not mean my opinion is correct, nor does it mean your opinion is either.. no offense to you, or anyone else here.
            Here is a link in case anyone is interested, about why one might consider atheism a religion. And oh yes, I do think Christianity is as simple as believing in Jesus, who in my opinion is God.. someone I can assure anyone who is here is a very “fun guy,”an after life out of out of His presence, would be no “fun” at all, quite JOYLESS indeed.
            http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

        • Anonymous

          I am Christian also, but I am offended by Christians who think only they will be “where the fun is”. God, if He exists, would probably be just as dissatisfied with those who don’t believe in Him as He’ll be with those who believe in Him “just in case”. I believe God also has a place in heaven for those who question.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000398392541 Chuck Jones

          And not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a hair color, et cetera.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/GM-Spaner/100003308511414 GM Spaner

          New Rule: Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position. Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU

    • craigz06

      I like Wheeler’s concept that we (as observers) brought this finely tuned existence on (by a Quantum interrogation of nature) creating a ‘Participatory Universe’ which is a closed loop. It’s illustrated in Paul Davies “The Goldilocks Enigma”.

    • Henry

      Divine action to make things the way they are is not an explanation. It’s just a way of saying we don’t know.

      • Kate Taylor

        I agree, “we” don’t know.. which includes all theories about “things the way they are.” And, what I believe is the “human spirit” was “made” by “God,” which to me does not conflict with evolution.. but again, I/we do not know.

    • Ahmed

      the most strange thing is that where ever you look you will find a logical proof for god , if you asked some one what is the possibilty for a heliocopter plane to be created from randomness even if we have left all its components i.e a finished worked iron fan and a motor, computers etc and i am not going to say we collected its raw materials i.e metals carbon and hydrogen for plastics in it etc – and left them for 10000000000000000 to the power trilion years , what will be the chances for these raw materials or even a complete devices to be collected randomly by itself and produce a helicopter ? it is obvious that a helicopter wont be made from randomness , now search in google for mosquito and see how it is much more complicated , inteligent than a helicopter , every device in a mosquito very well made to do its function it has a device to anesthetize the part of skin then a device to cut the skin then a device to suck the blood and many other devices . so as we will laugh on some one who says a helicopter can make it self from some iron , we should better fire some one from his scientific position if he sayed that all creatures is made by itself from nothing .

      you yourself can set down right now and maintain your posture inf front of computer as there is receptors in your muscles and other delicitate devices in your ear continiously sending signals to your brain to send other motor impulses to muscles to correct and maintain you in upright position and if you were going to fail in some direction the receptors in muscles of the opposite direction-called muscle spindles- is stimulated to send electrical signals to the brain to send back signals to the same muscle to increase its tone or force to contract to pull you not to fail down ! .

      this is just a very simple reflex in us . not mentioning other much more complicated functions as speach .

      now can any one who respect his/her mind say that such little examples are not a perfect design ?

      i have once read that there is a big reward of money for who can design a robot as intiligent as a cockroach ! so you can go and tell them :” i find it , randomness , all you have to do is to leave those some metals silicon and some glasses together in a box for a long enough time and a cockroach robot will get out of the box ! ” . and enjoy the cash !!

      the origin of the problem between science and religion could just be found in the current Christianity or jewishism because although they were both heavenly religions they have been corrupted through histroy by priests to make some money so both those religions which are supposed to be told by god who himself created the universe became fill of contradictions with the well knowen scientific facts as well as its practical commands . so a highly logical man as galiliyo galili ponded : if the manufucturer of that universe is himself who sent the bible then how he didn’t knew the Earth is not flat and it is revolving ? – and for nowadays also highly logical persons like Lawrence Krauss or whoever we call them atheist scientists can not accept a religion says the earth have been around from just 10000 years only or a religion that had sayed some time that the earth is flat .

      but there is only one heavenly religion that still intact it is Al Islam .you may associate it with terrorism as the media intend to show as they may know its true and powerful as there is many atheist scientists and even christian priests -search for yusuf estes in google – and jewish and ordinary people is entering this religion day after day see here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiZo-wMDrrw&feature=related

      i found it the only religion that does not conflict with logic but it even promotes for pondering and to be logically thinker in many verses of its book Quran and there is many scientific facts more than 1000 mentiond in it from 1430 years ago which have just been discovered in modern science , god ” Allah” says in that book what it means that God “Allah” raises who have believed and who have got the science degrees or positions . And in another verse Allah says :
      [35:28] Also, the people, the animals, and the livestock come in various colors. This is why the people who truly reverence GOD are those who are knowledgeable. GOD is Almighty, Forgiving.

      note that there is only one version of quran in arabic and that what i wrote is just a translation for what it means .

      here to listen to the original “Soura” or chapter:
      http://qur2aan.com/player.php?do=show&id=263

      and a small sample from scientific miracles in quraan here:
      http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/science_in_quran_%28P1211%29.html

      So the problem i think is not due to brilliant people nor due to religions it is due to who have corrupted the holly books . but not the quran as Allah our God said in quran :
      [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

      Original soura :
      http://www.islamhouse.com/p/111555
      number 15

      • bitters

        I agree with you to the point of the one, true religion..That would be Christianity..It matters not who has attempted to corrupt it..God is faithful; He will not allow His works to be destroyed..

        As for the Koran being uncorrupted..As I type, Saudi Arabia and the Wahabis have made revisions to the Koran and send them out to spread hate and terror among their believers..

        • Dfgh

          it is all about misunderstanding . quran reached us by a way called al twator , it means that a huge number of people memorizing the whole book , memorize it to a big number of people . so there is no way to be an error in it

          • Logic

            ^ makes no sense

            • Ahmed

              whatch this to know how that means by an live example :
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiZo-wMDrrw&feature=related

              and that is the case since 1400 years not mentioning the written way

            • Anonymous

              Islam: attempting to bring the past into the future. By force.

            • Ahmed

              please dont speak without a proof .
              islam is valid for all times
              there is no single thing in islam has no reason for it to !

              God guides you

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

            Exactly! Because we all know people never misremember anything they read in really long books.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

              On a second reading, I think I see what you’re getting at: a majority-rules based error-correcting code. That doesn’t change the fact that you’re spinning a weakness as a strength.

            • Ahmed

              sorry , but i can’t understand what u r tring to say , forgive me ! my mother language is Arabic .

        • Ahmed

          then what can you say about these vedios ?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDyIGW8UU

          and those debates ?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqLiCe_iimI

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMwbVmMkIw

          just use your mind and search

          • Anonymous

            And here, folks, is what religion hath wrought on us. The man contribution of religion: I am right, you are wrong.

            • Ahmed

              JUST use your mind

      • Anonymous

        You’re comparing living and non living items. Fail.

        • ahmed

          i can fell how you are tring to hide from the truth , but why ?

          • Anonymous

            My friend, please get an education. It’s the one thing they can’t steal from you.

            • AHMED

              who they ?!!!!!!

              what is written above is a scientific facts .
              and i am do studing medicine and physics

    • Kate Taylor
    • Me

      Perhaps the final condition of the universe created the initial condition. There is only one line between two points.

      • Origami

        the Zen circle

    • Anonymous

      Who knew? I didn’t and still don’t. I see nothing wrong with amazement.

    • Arthur Cammers

      At the scale of the universe god is not personal so god is very different from those presented in most theologies . . . if god exists.

    • Spitsocial

      Freakin COOL!

    • Mikezulauf

      Way to go guys!!! Keep up the scientific approach to things! I’m an atheist and full support anyone that tries to find all the answer!

    • Anonymous

      This strikes me as “Goldilocks” logic – papa bears bed is too hard, mama bears bed is too soft, and baby bears bed is just right.

      I don’t know if I can disprove it, but it strikes me as pretty silly, especailly given the huge range of conditions on earth throughout the history of life on earth

      • Anonymous

        I agree. Would Goldilocks assume that God made the just right bed?

        • Fleetwolf2

          A Christian Goldilocks might…Was at a friend’s house many years ago when her mother walked in the door holding a used hair curler and proudly exclaiming “Look what Jesus found for me! He knew I needed a new hair curler and left one at the flea market for me!” Some Christians attribute pretty much everything in their lives to Jesus or god.

    • Mwanner

      Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? Well, of course it is. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

      • Joris

        And that’s why the universe is teaming with life.

        Wait… what?

        • dconklin

          teeming

    • frances

      If for no other reason, articles like this make me marvel at the God I very much believe in; the original Creator who shaped our universe over the dateless past. It’s just one small example of how perfectly matter came together to form and sustain life. I’m not here to argue anyone’s belief; there are so many more reasons why I believe in the Trinity (and none have to do with the theory that “there’s no other explanation about how life came to be”) but I think God, who created the laws of physics and math, is a pretty cool scientist :)

      • Anonymous

        I also believe in God, however I believe that the universe, like God, has existed forever. Maybe they’re one and the same. It’s more than anyone can say for sure or ever know. Makes my head hurt, LOL. :)

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1638829508 Brad Morton

          Anyone who understands the difference between the empirical evidence of the Big Bang and the theory of a multiverse/infinite universe can see that the multiverse/infinite universe theory was conceived by materialists, humanists, and atheists as a way to get around the question of who or what existed before the finite universe. This propaganda has been shoveled down the throats of young people for so many years by our Marxist education system and PBS that very few know the difference between truth and fiction anymore.

          • Anonymous

            Anyone? Not me. So there.

          • Origami

            Whaaaa? You use sophist reasoning to explain your sophist reasoning???

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lauren-M-C-Duggan/508265091 Lauren M C Duggan

            I suppose Brad, that you know a great deal more about the Universe than the people at PBS? I have a inkling that you also watch Fox news religiously (no pun intended).
            The wonderful thing about people who don’t believe in god (or any other deity) is that there is NO objective. They don’t have to worry about bringing in a “flock” (which has always been an insulting term) by twisting facts and distorting truth. Is it right for Creationists to make ridiculous claims that fossils were “planted” by scientists? No.
            Science adjusts it’s views based on what’s observed. To postulate that the Universe is an open system, isn’t ridiculous.
            If anything, it makes sense. Open systems can exchange energy between one another. It could be that the Big Bang Theory was initiated by an outside source.
            But then again, it’s still just a theory. Which can only be disproved by SCIENCE, not the speculation of an emotionally fueled individual.
            Conspiracy theorists need to sit down and open their mind to the possibility that scientists aren’t trying to corrupt youth. They have more important things on their mind besides pissing YOU off. Although from your Ron Paul photo, I can see you’re the type of person who thinks religion should play a role in scientific advancements. Regardless of the evidence.

            • dconklin

              >The wonderful thing about people who don’t believe in god (or any other deity) is that there is NO objective.

              Their objective is to not feel guilty while they play around with your spouse when you aren’t home. Secondly, if they can convince others that there is no God, no punishment for sin, no afterlife, etc., they don’t feel like they are going that route alone.

              >It could be that the Big Bang Theory was initiated by an outside source.

              That would be God and this wasn’t His first “rodeo.”

          • http://profiles.google.com/rjvg50 Kirk Holden

            I agree, computers, airplanes and teh interwebs are the result of a vast conspiracy of smart people who are driving superstition to the margins and instead focusing on reality

          • Dcg1220

            Actually single-particle interference phenomena unequivocally rule out the possibility that the tangible universe around us is all that exists. All particles are grouped into parallel universes. They are ‘parallel’ in the sense that within each universe particles interact with each other just as they do in the tangible universe, but each universe affects the others only weakly, through interference phenomena but nevertheless it’s an observable effect

      • Ahmed

        Islam The religion of Science and morals

        http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scientist+in+islam

      • Mikeyroberts

        I particularly like the way he created viruses and bacteria to kill millions of the creation that he loves so much http://listverse.com/2007/11/15/top-10-worst-diseases/ You’ve got to marvel at some of his ingenious ways to show his love, like sending white Christians from Europe to spread his viruses to indigenous peoples around the world like the Americas. The absolute genius and effectiveness of this ‘cure’ for their heathen ways to make sure they get to heaven is breathtaking. And then there’s things like the sickening parasites he carefully crafted http://listverse.com/2010/01/13/top-10-most-horrific-parasite-infections/ – my favourite is the brain-eating amoeba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri – If only our scientists would follow the lead of the creator, what a great world we would have.

        • Caleb

          Mikey, I would like to say I disagree with your approach to God. To each his own, but dude, you should be more open minded and not blame things on something we (everyone) know nothing about. We’re so quick to blame God for the bad things that have taken place, especially in his name. Like I said we know nothing about God but can only speculate. We all have questions why things are and whats the point to all the death and turmoil in the world. Just don’t rag on other’s believes man. Just food for thought. If your arguments were a bit more open minded and a little less offensive people would probably take you a little more seriously.

          • Mikeyroberts

            Who is blaming God for things done in his name? We’re not talking about some human doing some terrible acts we are talking about species creation, isn’t this something that only God can do, or are you now claiming that something else may be responsible for creation?

            But dude, you should be more open minded and not credit things to something we (everyone) know nothing about. We’re so quick to credit God for the good things that have taken place, especially in his name.If your arguments were a bit more open-minded and a little less offensive people would probably take you a little more seriously.

            No, we don’t have to ‘only speculate’, we can consider evidence, including the evidence for the many thousands of gods which have existed over the millennia. If you claim to be open-minded then surely you are willing to consider that Allah, Zeus or any of the others might be the ‘true’ god, there’s just as little evidence as for your god. Or even, as the evidence actually suggests, that there are no gods and that they are all gods merely products of the human psyche.

            • Mary

              Maybe a perfect system requires equal growth and decay to be eternal.

        • dconklin

          >I particularly like the way he created viruses and bacteria

          Got proof for that claim?

    • Campy9987

      WOW

    • Anonymous

      I used to be paid for work as a proofreader. I guess companies don’t use those anymore? Add that to the list of jobs that are never coming back. This type of lost job ought to clue the right in on the real reason there are no jobs.

    • Teacher Paul

      Ask yourselves, why and how did this priest develop this theory? Was his view of the cosmos developed because of his mathematics, philosophy or religion? Maybe it is much simpler than all you learned folks are trying to discuss while displaying what intelligent bullies you are? What arrogance. Georges was a simple man who believed in truth, justice and the scientific method. Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday.”

    • Fleetwolf2

      I’m wondering if there’s maybe some over-thinking going on with physicists sometimes…Many people believed the ancient Egyptians knew higher math, and used it to mathematically align their existence with the cosmos, because pi was contained in practically ever dimension of every great and small edifice they created…then someone observant noted they used wheels to roll out their lengths and dimensions, so pi was inherently contained in every measurement they made, whether they knew it or not. Might be that some folks are over-analyzing the data and maybe missing something simple that’s inherent in everthing they look at. Kinda sorta an Occam’s Razor thing…

      • Annieclat2

        so much so anthropormorphic. isnt it all about us and how we feel about it? would all aspects of the universe still exist if no one was around to notice? would there be a black hole if we didn’t know about them? not a real ‘tree in the woods’ observation-more of a playground

    • Bill

      42

      • Ahmed

        43-44-45 …

        what does that means please ?

        • mccormitron

          HAHAHA i think it’s a “hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” reference

          • Ahmed

            did you noticed that it has took 7 likes ?! hhh

    • Goldrushlin

      Though I am no great thinker.. I am grateful that Nova makes me at least try to comprehend mysteries of our existence.

    • Cfo

      All of these arguments about religion got me to thinking. Most people get hung up on the argument of whether God exists, but if you think about it, for Judeo-Christians there’s much more to it than that. According to the Bible, not only God exists, but also Satan, other assorted demons, angels and giants also exist or existed, leaving a HUGE gap in the evidence for the proof of these religions’ validity. For Hindus proof of the existence of any of a plethora of Gods and demi-Gods is lacking. etc. etc. All religions have alot of ‘splaining to do, except atheism, which has no supernatural creatures of any kind to try to prove the existence of to bring validity to its “faith”. Oh and by the way, I am a Christian only because I believe in the messages of Grace and Forgiveness emphasized by Christ and which are fundamental principals of only one religion – Christianity, not because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God or that God created the Universe, which may or may not be true.

      • Ahmed

        then what do you say about that vidoe ?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDyIGW8UU

      • nad

        Christian Science does not recognize satan or any other demons, angels or supernatural beings as real. In Christian Science, “being” is not in matter. This is not what a Christian Scientist “believes” but what a Christian Scientist knows through the demonstration and action of healing which refutes the false sense testimony.

    • Cfo

      Imagine for a moment that in one of those pockets where inflation continues, (such as inside a black hole), the laws of physics are near enough to ours that life independently evolves there also, but those physical constants are sufficiently different that from their perspective our universe is a part of theirs and that the difference in the laws of physics in their universe allows them to perform feats which appear to be supernatural from our perspective.

    • Woodstockrivera

      Reality is far stranger than fiction

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SG5FN7WFE53LD5SRBGGV5US6TU Matthew Ota

      In a nutshell this is the strong and weak anthropic principal. One can argue that the universe has to be the way it is because we are here to contemplate it. If the universe was made any other way that was not condusive to life, then we would not be around to see it.

    • Ahmed

      Athiests say that they are logical !

      the most strange thing is that where ever you look you will find a logical proof for god , if you asked some one what is the possibilty for a heliocopter plane to be created from randomness even if we have left all its components i.e a finished worked iron fan and a motor, computers etc and i am not going to say we collected its raw materials i.e metals carbon and hydrogen for plastics in it etc – and left them for 10000000000000000 to the power trilion years , what will be the chances for these raw materials or even a complete devices to be collected randomly by itself and produce a helicopter ? it is obvious that a helicopter wont be made from randomness , now search in google for mosquito and see how it is much more complicated , inteligent than a helicopter , every device in a mosquito very well made to do its function it has a device to anesthetize the part of skin then a device to cut the skin then a device to suck the blood and many other devices . so as we will laugh on some one who says a helicopter can make it self from some iron , we should better fire some one from his scientific position if he sayed that all creatures is made by itself from nothing .

      you yourself can set down right now and maintain your posture inf front of computer as there is receptors in your muscles and other delicitate devices in your ear continiously sending signals to your brain to send other motor impulses to muscles to correct and maintain you in upright position and if you were going to fail in some direction the receptors in muscles of the opposite direction-called muscle spindles- is stimulated to send electrical signals to the brain to send back signals to the same muscle to increase its tone or force to contract to pull you not to fail down ! .

      this is just a very simple reflex in us . not mentioning other much more complicated functions as speach .

      now can any one who respect his/her mind say that such little examples are not a perfect design ?

      i have once read that there is a big reward of money for who can design a robot as intiligent as a cockroach ! so you can go and tell them :” i find it , randomness , all you have to do is to leave those some metals silicon and some glasses together in a box for a long enough time and a cockroach robot will get out of the box ! ” . and enjoy the cash !!

      the origin of the problem between science and religion could just be found in the current Christianity or jewishism because although they were both heavenly religions they have been corrupted through histroy by priests to make some money so both those religions which are supposed to be told by god who himself created the universe became fill of contradictions with the well knowen scientific facts as well as its practical commands . so a highly logical man as galiliyo galili ponded : if the manufucturer of that universe is himself who sent the bible then how he didn’t knew the Earth is not flat and it is revolving ? – and for nowadays also highly logical persons like Lawrence Krauss or whoever we call them atheist scientists can not accept a religion says the earth have been around from just 10000 years only or a religion that had sayed some time that the earth is flat .

      but there is only one heavenly religion that still intact it is Al Islam .you may associate it with terrorism as the media intend to show as they may know its true and powerful as there is many atheist scientists and even christian priests -search for yusuf estes in google – and jewish and ordinary people is entering this religion day after day see here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiZo-wMDrrw&feature=related

      i found it the only religion that does not conflict with logic but it even promotes for pondering and to be logically thinker in many verses of its book Quran and there is many scientific facts more than 1000 mentiond in it from 1430 years ago which have just been discovered in modern science , god ” Allah” says in that book what it means that God “Allah” raises who have believed and who have got the science degrees or positions . And in another verse Allah says :
      [35:28] Also, the people, the animals, and the livestock come in various colors. This is why the people who truly reverence GOD are those who are knowledgeable. GOD is Almighty, Forgiving.

      note that there is only one version of quran in arabic and that what i wrote is just a translation for what it means .

      here to listen to the original “Soura” or chapter:
      http://qur2aan.com/player.php?do=show&id=263

      and a small sample from scientific miracles in quraan here:
      http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/science_in_quran_%28P1211%29.html

      So the problem i think is not due to brilliant people nor due to religions it is due to who have corrupted the holly books . but not the quran as Allah our God said in quran :
      [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

      Original soura :
      http://www.islamhouse.com/p/111555

      number 15

    • Garyw

      And that, fellow beings, is why Donald Duck does not wear pants.

    • Ahmed
    • El_profe_x

      First of all, the view that the universe is fine-tuned for life seems absurd considering that we have no evidence that life exists outside of this little biosphere. And secondly, Faber is able to relate the possibility of a creative God to the multiverse concept because each explains away the mysteries without direct evidence. The multiverse is an article of faith, not fact. Although this commentary is somewhat rambling and disjointed, it does reflect a common theme in popular science these days that our calculations and certainties fall apart when applied to either minute or gigantic systems, and I liked the balloon analogy quite a bit. That said, what still intrigues me is that having concluded that the only possible explanations for a universe supportive of life is either God or a multiverse, what psychologically drives a person to choose one?

    • Origami

      He asked her how the universe was constructed. “It s a turtle on top of another turtle on top of another.” she said. “Then what is under the first turtle?” he asked. She replied,
      “It’s no use. Its turtles all the way down.”

    • Origami

      An agnostic and an atheist were arguing over which chuch not to send their child to……..

    • Origami

      To argue about religion is an exercise in futility

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

      The best response to this type of reasoning has to be the puddle analogy of Douglas Adams: “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!’ ”

      It’s often been said that if the matter-antimatter ratio at the beginning of the universe were the slightest bit off of 1:1, all matter would be dispersed to the edges of the universe. This goes way beyond my understanding of physics, but I can’t help but think that this doesn’t prohibit some form of life, just life as we know it.

    • EvoJim

      As a biologist I would say that it is life finely tuned to the universe as it is. The earth is populated by over a million forms finely tuned for specialized conditions ranging from antarctic deserts to volcanic hot springs and ocean vents. If the universe was very different, some very different reproducing form would have occurred to wrest a brief existence from the entropy. It wouldn’t be life as we know it, but if it included intelligent forms, they would also marvel at how fine tuned that universe would be for them.

    • RG

      Maybe Captain Kirk had it right, reality, life, mind are just representations on the Holodeck.
      Or as Shakespeare said, “The world is but a stage….”

      • craigz06

        I like this quote about the still unexplored wonders of the mulitverse:

        Horatio:
        O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

        Hamlet:
        And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
        There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
        Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    • Margotm

      There is evidence of the big bang and for those who take the next step God.
      The multiverse is a theory for which there is not hard evidence.

    • Yatin Dhareshwar

      Could this perhaps have to do with the phenomenon of “emergence”? Could the fined tuned values be the successful outcomes of emergent self-organizing primeval dark matter?

      Based on this basic premise, I do have an alternate (armchair) theory that could explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe as well as eliminate the need for “inflation”.

      Interested reader may find the full theory at: http://ydessays.blogspot.in/2012/01/case-for-emergence-as-cause-of-birth-of.html

    • Emersoncm

      “some physicists believe inflation continues in other parts of spacetime” True. Others believe our 4 dimensional (3 space one time) universe is only one amongst the multiverses, separated by some dimension other than our 4. God knows, and we can learn more and more, but we will never be able to learn everything about everything.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HUHWX4TIAZRFNFYCWUE43OZDUQ 7LeagueBoots

      The anthropic principle reflects lazy circular thinking and a misunderstanding of the multiverse concept. 1) if there is life in a universe that universe will appear to be specially tuned for the existence of that life. 2) the hypothesized multiverse contains approximately 10^500 universes stable each with subtly different rules governing them, depending on how each of their versions of the Big Bang turned out, and many, many more where the rules were so widely varied that the potential universe could never form.

      The anthropic principle is an expansion of the sort of thinking that decrees that we are special because we want to believe that we are.

      As it down with many other scientists, this sort of self-centered thinking infuriates me.

    • Mark

      I think this article is better explained with psychology. We’re much more likely to marvel at the 1 in a billion event and attribute it to God than to chance, even though such events happen. We always search for explanations –it’s in our nature.

    • Azan Mann

      Does anyone else find it disturbing when, in any ‘theory’, mere words and descriptions, like ‘Dark Matter’, ‘Multiverse’ or ‘God’ are created ex-nihilo by those desperate to maintain ‘belief’ in that ‘theory’ in order to gloss over the fact that nothing for sure is actually ‘known’ . . . and the universe is more mysterious than any of us can ever imagine. To me this simply reinforces a conviction that it is much better to simply live in the moment and be happy instead of concerning oneself over endless debate and ‘belief systems’.

      • Mikeyroberts

        Or create mere words like Gravity, Atom, Electricity, etc? Yes, these names were also created ‘ex-nihilo’ as you put it. Obviously, attempts by scientists desperate to maintain their belief in their theories in order to gloss over the fact that nothing for sure is actually ‘known’.

        There would be no endless debate over ‘belief systems’ if it wasn’t for the fact that some of the ‘faithful’ weren’t so intent on making sure that everyone else, including the ‘faithful’ of other faiths, believe the same things that they do. Time after time the faithful have shown that they are more than ready to use force and/or coercion to press their beliefs on others, restrict the liberties of others or commit atrocious acts in their god’s name.

        When that stops I’ll be more than happy to let the discussion drop and leave them to believe whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own homes without criticising, questioning or even laughing at their beliefs.

    • Godelgandler

      what ever created the universe at the moment of the big bang so find tuned it that it knew life would arise 13 billions later immediately left saying s***w you you are on your own

    • Ebos

      silly humans, always needing to invent answers when they have questions that have no answers.

    • Anonymous

      Three things which pertain to these “Questions about the Universe”: 1) How long is ‘infinity’? Does 10^100 years qualify? Longer? 2) What does ‘ultimate entropy’ look like? The only real thing you know about ‘ultimate entropy’ is that regardless of where you look, there is no temperature variation. 3) Somehow, sometime the universe must recycle itself.

      • Emersoncm

        1) 10^100 is infinitely far from infinity. No matter how big a finite number (e.g. of years) is, it is a finite distance from 0 and an infinite distance from infinity. 2) that is by definition of entropy and is a statistical average. Quantum fluctuations and relativistic physics prevent ultimate entropy from being scale independent state. 3) that the universe must recycle itself is plausible (I believe it) but unproven and probably unprovable.

    • John John

      The problem is the fields of study that have to with Origins are not pursued by Christians because they already have the answer to these questions. Atheists flock to these fields and so it is dominated by them. So what are we left with? Certainly not the truth as they are biased. The absurdity of multiverse clearly proves that.
      If there were not more agnostics in the field the atheists would completely deny fine tuning.–so at least there are some forces working against their bias.

      In the end is really doesnt matter as turning to Christ is a matter of the heart. Those who want God as father turn to him and those who dont are just left to say its all crap. God allows doubt for this very reason–so there will always be a balance in order for people to reveal what they truly want–and atheists dont want a God ruling over them.
      The overwhelming majority of Christians believe God used some type of evolution–so we not afraid of the answers of science. But atheists were petrified and in the first stage of grief when a beginning was postulated in physics–and the result was denial. With every day its becoming obvious through scientific findings what almost every human being throughout history could see in all of 3 seconds–the universe is designed. So again..they were stuck in denial for 30 years about the obvious FT and now move to something that itself is patently absurd–multiverse–when all it wold take is 2 seocnds of thought to see that would have to be designed too.
      You cant get something from nothing in a spacetime universe. The fact that people who proclaim they use logic and reason and then do the exact opposite defines their bias all too well.

    • http://moonbirth-godbirth.com/Thumbnails_Fractals_made_visible_01.html Ron Anderson

      So many reach the idea that god created our universe as an option. But, where is the evidence of a mind generated universe? How many points can you add?

      I can give many obuse observations that will be denied immediately by academics, but, real truth is not just what is accepted within their transient religion… Is it?

      I have personally consciously existed outside my body several times. I have personally experienced a near death experience. It was perceived ahead of time. It was orchestrated with me as a very unwilling participant and a controlling aware intelligence that was not me imposing it upon me and discussing it with me.

      I was very ill at the time and doubted I was to return. It laughed off my terror and just said “you all come here like this”. I asked it many questions about my life and future then at its whim I was returned to my still warm cup of tea by my bedside.

      What was it? It was an aware all encompassing glow, an energy that was the whole environment I was pushed to visit. It does not think much of our state of being. It is not compassionate toward our pain in ways religion implies for instance.

      Where was it? The whole top of my head opened into that realm. I asked why we are not all allowed to know of it usually? The answer was clear: “If you all had access to it all the time none of you would want to stay there.”

      I have a proven memory of a physical event from 2 years before my birth. I have played out my part in absolute miracles where telepathy and awareness of states inside other people’s bodies were essential.

      I have pulled memories out of other people they did not know they had until they verified facts with their parents. I knew what my son would look like 2 years before his birth and before I knew his mother.

      I have seen people have mutual dreams while sleeping where they interacted and both remembered their role in that event. I have recorded and seen other people record future events from dsymbolizing their dreams.

      I have saved my own life on roads by perceiving conditions literally around the next corner before I turned it, avoiding accidents for doing so. I knew I was going to hit a pedestrian for a week before he poured down the bottle of Johnny Walker scotch then ran blissfully between my headlights.

      I have personally tested many aspects of a possible consciousness driven universe. Prayer or focused intention can create future events, manipulating people events and matter in time. What does that say about solid reality apart from us?

      If any or all of these things are so for me, and the constant steam of other people experiencing aspects of them, then it would pay science to begin wondering toward our universe as something that exists or even is created from outside of our physical universe or the pallid linear consciousness we exhibit here in it… Wouldn’t it?

    • Jim

      ***says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and
      fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so
      fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”***

      Rubbish…name one.. Krauss. This problem was hidden from the public by these atheists and ever since the “problem” has gotten dramatically worse.
      Just the fact that they call the results a Problem- that the Universe is fine tuned, which seems obvious to almost every human that has ever lived without even knowing the math, shows how pathologically biased they are.

      The fine tuning is not a problem–its the solution to their search. When you get your answer and then call that answer a problem, all you do is identify yourself as dishonest.

      Imagine they called the results of Evolution–a problem? These social misfits have part of their brains missing–they cant see design or purpose. Fine..but when the math shows clear design itself all we are left is a bunch of liars who deny the very math they worship. This is no longer science..its fools embarrassed they were wrong hiding in the corner like frightened children of their results.

    • jesse

      It would seem the universe isn’t so fine tuned for life. We occupy almost non-percent of our universe for almost non-percent of time. The vast majority of the universe is not conducive to life. You could more accurately say that the universe was perfectly fine tuned for black holes. After all, there are far more black holes in the universe than humans that have lived.