Physics

1332 readers

14 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Many physicists assume we must live in a multiverse – but their basic maths may be wrong (theconversation.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So because we exist, that means the universe is fine-tuned for life or there's just so many of them that we ended up in a one that's randomly good.

Maybe something else is happening, which is that life... finds a way. Maybe there are far more possible combinations of constants that allow the existence of life than we think because our definition of "life" is so narrow.

At any rate, the concept of our universe having a purpose, and that purpose being life, isn't supported by the fact that almost all of our universe is extremely hostile to life. If "someone" - not god but maybe god - designed a universe where life was supposed to thrive, why put so goddamn much of it out of reach, and fill all of that with radiation and hard vacuum?

In other words: If this is a universe tuned for life, it's not a very good one.

[–] MotoAsh 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Seriously... Such a stupid concept to try and bring back to the maths. It is a purely philosophical question they're trying to answer. The math doesn't care why and even just planet Earth isn't terribly hospitable.

This kind of crap just screams main character syndrome. Someone who wants to think about the Fermi Paradox whilst still feeling special.

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

why put so goddamn much of it out of reach

You're assuming that it was only tuned for human life and/or that life is meant to leave its home planet.

A gardener designs a garden so that each plant has a place and doesn't let any plant take over the whole garden. If "someone" designed this place, it is entirely possible that we are stuck in a corner for a reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not just our home planet. Because the universe is expanding we won't ever get further than our local group before it's receding faster than the speed of light. Almost all of the universe is inaccessible at liminal speeds.

If I thought the universe was made "for" anything it would probably be black holes.

[–] FlowVoid 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The point is that you are assuming "inaccessibility" is incompatible with a universe "made for life". But it's entirely possible that inaccessibility is a feature, not a bug.

At the risk of anthopomorphizing, every nonhuman life I'm responsible for is given very little access to move elsewhere. The fish stay in their tank, the dogs stay in the yard, the plants stay in their pots. They are not meant to freely roam (or seed) the rest of my town, much less the universe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why make so much space if it's just going to sit there empty? Seems like quite a waste of effort

[–] FlowVoid 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who says the universe is empty? It's mostly inaccessible by humans, but it might be teeming with life. Though not necessarily intelligent life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s not enough density in space for it to sustain life.

[–] FlowVoid 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok, but there are countless planets within that space that might contain life.

And if someone were intentionally trying to prevent life from colonizing other planets, then lots and lots of empty space between planets would be a good solution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's so much more empty space than there is planets, though

[–] FlowVoid 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, that's what it makes it such an effective barrier.