If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[Heywood]

Sorry but that is an absurd prediction. We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things.

The sub-realities you have defined really are created by the rules, to the extent that they exist at all. But they really do not exist except as a set of rules. We cannot create real space merely by making up rules for how that space should work, no matter how complex or internally consistent the rules are.

To induce anything about the the construction of the real world based upon these sub-realities you have to assume that the the real world is a great deal more like a sub-reality than we have any reason to believe it is. Or you have to believe that sub-realities described by an intellect, cause those sub-realities to exist in any way other than as a thought experiment.

What is exactly absurd about the prediction? One of the two conjectures must be true.

A)Sub realities always require intelligence to come into existence.
B)Sub realities do not always require intelligence to come into existence.

There is nothing absurd about thinking about these two conjectures and looking for reasons to favor one over the other. Can you think of a good reason to favor B over A. The only reason I can think of to favor B is that it might be more consistent with your world view.....but this is not a good reason. There is good objective reason, however, to favor A over B. That good reason is that we always observe sub realities requiring intelligence to come into existence. We never observe sub realities not requiring intelligence to come into existence.

When you say, "We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things." I interpret this to mean you think the concept of a subreality is nonsensical. Is that a fair interpretation?

One assumption made by my argument is that the real world is a sub reality. If you don't accept this assumption....you're not going to accept the argument. It seems to me that you do not accept this assumption. Right now I don't really care to go into detail why I believe this assumption. I have covered it in other threads. It has to do with causality, the nature of randomness, quantum mechanics, and what Bells theorem tells us. I'm going to ask you to accept this assumption as true for the sake of the argument we are having....just to see if by accepting it you reach the same conclusion I have.

Last, you claim sub realities are not really real....well I have argued why from certain perspectives they are real. You don't do anything to refute my argument on this point. You don't even say my argument on this point is wrong. You simply re-iterate your claim that sub realities provided as examples by me, you, and others....are simply are not real. I am asking you here to address the argument I made on this point and show why it is wrong.

---

Leonard Susskind talks about the apparent fine tuning. Leonard is a well known and very well respected in the physics world. He is considered one of the fathers of string theory. He agrees the universe appears to be fine tuned for our existence....I disagree and claim it is fine tuned for emergent complexity....but non the less we both agree it is fine tuned. When he talks about the cosmological constant being precisely fine tuned....it is to one part in a trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion. Change it that much and there is no sustained emergent complexity.

Susskind favors the multiverse explanation for the apparent fine tuning BTW. Watch the vid...its good stuff.