(May 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm)SteveII Wrote:(May 19, 2017 at 11:15 am)Grandizer Wrote: Sean Carroll is one scientist who does not believe the universe is necessarily fine-tuned for life.
Some scientists that defend the reality of fine-tuning:
Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, and Wilczek.
I'm skeptical that all of them believe the unvierse is fine-tuned for life. But suppose this is so, doesn't matter. My response was directed to you claiming that it is a fact not in question that the unverse is fine-tuned for life, and that no serious scientist would think differently about this (e.g., necessary universe/multiverse, etc.). Brought up Sean Carroll as an example of a serious scientist who believes in many-worlds interpretation and says that it's not necessarily the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life (it's possible that the parameters could be adjusted somewhat and still allow for life of some sort). I'm sure there are a few more scientists who agree, but like I said, doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it's not the opinions/speculations of scientists that we should accept as gospel truth. It's what they discover and/or derive through the scientific method that we should seriously consider.
