Why do you think our universe is fine tuned? What made it so elegant?

[pulstar]

Interesting. I'm smelling some Platonism there. Your view could be explained as some Judeo- Christian and Buddhist blend, no? There is a beginning, but the universe is eternal in cycles. God seems to be doing some sort of unnecessary work here. Unless previous cycles are somehow preparing next cycles for life in some strange way. Of there is no God in this concept we have a strange beginning for a self organizing universe. Universe dies in cyclical models before it starts to expand again. This is a crazy sounding chain, cosmos kinda rearranges itself, after dying. It's problematic without epic magic.

We don't really know much about black holes, at least not too much. They might not exist. If they do exist, which is not a bad assumption, they are very epic anomalies. They of course got to be a consequence of something, but saying our universe is fine tuned for them and everything in our universe is not taking anything away from the fact that the universe seems to be fine tuned. Maybe even fine tuned for life. Life is still a miracle and needs obviously some magic to exist, this is a tricky question, how life rose up. But laws of physics are at least making it possible for us not to fall apart to pieces.

Life is a byproduct of what? Cosmic craziness? At minimum it's a byproduct of extremely epic universe. At minimum. Let our universe be harsh in most places or not.

Life is a miracle of some sort. Everything points to this. The fact that even an elegant universe is mostly empty of life is something worth noting. All that enormous space universe has is needed to have life.

What do you mean by "Maybe there are universes where life as a percentage to all mass and energy is much much higher and we live in a shitty one"? What maybe there are some universes full of life? You need so many things to have life, perfectly balanced things. A planet of right size and right distance from the sun, working laws of physics, universe expanding at the right speed. Advanced life on earth in our solar system is a miracle too big to say that we live in a shitty universe. Now some might say that maybe there is a universe in some other dimension popping out off quantum soup which is full of smart aliens but it's all pure fantasy and i'm not even sure if that scenario would be a good definition of a better universe. Maybe is always maybe. But reality is reality. And in reality we needed a miracle and our elegant universe to get life here. However, using our imagination is something that paved the way for any development. http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd...iverse-of-1686

If they are set to zero they are non existent for us. Do we need to think about them? Same goes for other universes, many multiverse theories assume that different universes are not really connected as some realms. Some argue tho that there are dimensions and everything is connected and already exists in different variants. Hugh Everett was close to this type of thinking. He thought all the magic we see in quantum world is possible because all realms are connected and the wave function never collapses. A very brave take on quantum mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III Nonetheless, let there be zillions of other universes, they don't explain our universe which is perfect enough for life to exist. We don't know how life rose up, but we know it's possible for advanced life to exist in our solar system. If we try to explain our existence and our universe with other universes and abstract ideas of the multiverse, then we need to explain the mechanism behind the multiverse.

Anyway if this is your take on things/ you see this type of scenario the most probably to explain our existence it would be worth thinking what kind of mechanism drives this whole multiverse and what is the ultimate source of it. It must be quite fine tuned to work in order to produce everything or anything really. If it produces some more epic and some less epic variants at the same time as it produces our universe- it's still producing fine tuned variants and can be considered as fine tuned. It's just a bit random type of creation and is quite a perverted view on things. It will make things very strange for both sides- scientific puritans and Abrahamic theists. The whole saga will remind of some Hindu cyclical stuff or Kabbalistic creation. Or actually it will be even worse than that since it will produce many non working variants too. Again multiverse is a strange place for science to be in- anyone can bring any ideas if this is the case. There might be eternal creation Andrei Linde likes to talk about with different laws of physics or there might be same stuff what we have here. A lot of same stuff what we have is what they start with because it's the most logical start. So even with multiverses it's preferable to start with something we have here and know more about. Now they might say "listen, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist". But we can answer that "just because we can think that something can exist beyond our eyes and sometimes beyond our imagination doesn't mean it's logical to assume it exists or can exist". All of this talk goes back to the fact that we don't know if anything rather than this universe can exist. Yet this universe has to be explained and the most probable explanation lies beyond this universe and beyond the whole concept of Big Bang, which depicts only first steps of creation. So the ultimate truth is beyond our scientific possibilities, very possibly will always be. But that doesn't mean there are no good explanations for things. There seems to be some sort of creation which makes it very tough for modern Buddhists at least, since they put their trust in secular eternity and infinity.

I guess if you would want to put it in terms of religion the closest its gets is indeed blend of the two, concretely apophatic theology and Advaita Vedanta.

Life is cellular automaton like Conway described it, starting with Garden of Eden initial configuration. Its only as crazy as other theories.

[Moje ime]

God created Universe but that doesn't mean science can't try to explain that process inside limits we are able to understand.

[Methuselah]

I guess if you would want to put it in terms of religion the closest its gets is indeed blend of the two, concretely apophatic theology and Advaita Vedanta.

Life is cellular automaton like Conway described it, starting with Garden of Eden initial configuration. Its only as crazy as other theories.

Sounds a bit like Kabbalistic approach as well. Depending on how personal your concept of God possibly is...

Life is epic. Full of consciousness and full of mysteries.

God created Universe but that doesn't mean science can't try to explain that process inside limits we are able to understand.

Oh yes, absolutely, we need scientific tools to get closer. Not only is science helping us to understand the universe but helping to keep people from dying. Alexander Fleming and Jonas Salk saved so many lives by working hard in their fields.

[RandomGuy20]

A higher power/intelligent design.

[Methuselah]

A higher power/intelligent design.

What would you tell a person claiming the universe is just a part of some soulless machine?

[RandomGuy20]

What would you tell a person claiming the universe is just a part of some soulless machine?

A tangible explanation - that anything is built from the foundation upwards - you cant throw random materials together and create a structure.
Philosophical - that if human life is completely random than it all has no meaning - good deeds, love, kindness or anything means nothing and that humans and our laws are our own gods.
Scientific - the biggest flaw in the "the big bang" theory is that matter can't appear from nowhere - scientists say the universe clumped together over millions of years from nothingness. By scientific theory you cant get 'something' from 'nothing'.

[Aldaris]

Well, science is always about assuming something, especially in cosmology, it's not only about observable facts as sad as it sounds. Modern agnostic science (a huge part of the scientific community) seems to assume that there is a multiverse. Is it observable? No. Are there any logical reasons to believe in it? Yes. Inflation is a part of accepted modern Big Bang cosmology and inflationary models kinda predict other universes. Now, things are still open since we are not sure yet if the inflation will be the best answer. But it answers things more scientifically than your uncertainty does and this is the reason inflation is accepted concept in modern cosmology (now it might be a big mistake indeed, the whole concept of inflation but science deeply and badly needed this). You seem to take observable science as the only real science which ironically will still leave you in uncertainty too big for science to handle. You can't explain our universe with only observable facts you see. You have to go further and use intuition. This is science too. In fact, this is modern day cosmology, take it or leave it. And modern day cosmology is stuck, scientists are confused. Being agnostic and open minded won't help here. I bet all of them claim being scientific and logical. All of us claim to do so.

I agree that all answers in my poll are abstract answers (it's debatable whether multiverse theories are good science). But your take on this issue falls under the same category. You don't have any explanation for the things which cry out for the explanation. And you forget about modern scientific concepts (like inflation) predicting multiverses. If we look at inflation and multiverse as bad science then what made cosmos so elegant, assuming you don't believe in God? Old school agnostic take would say "it just happened and hey let's see if we have better knowledge later". This view falls under the same category with other abstract answers. Just because you are open minded for future answers (which might never come) doesn't mean you are closer to the truth, since you seem to trust randomness to produce elegant universe (another option is to run from the question itself or to jump on some train reminding multiverse theories). Randomness can not produce an elegant universe. This is the reason Penrose works on cyclical models and Hawking started to like multiverse (both there nailing down the beginning but changed their mind on this). There must be an answer for fine tuned universe. For some reason you seem not to believe it's an accepted fact in a modern day cosmology. If so, and it seems so, you might not want to find a good answer to the whole story. Not like there are no good candidates. There are and this is there science is now because science is about finding answers.

You don’t need to go into detail about multiverse theory and scientific metodology, if the point you’re reacting on is about not assuming there was a conscious creator of the universe in the first place (which isn’t the same thing as assuming his non-existence, mind you). I just hope you’re not trying to deliberately divert attention. Anyway. The things assumed in most scientific fields are the ones which are directly observable or otherwise demonstrable - you go on with theoretical predictions afterwards, not the other way around. Theoretical physics is kinda special in this regard - you indeed work within your assumptions on your theory, proving your theorems and making calculations, treating it literally as just an another subfield of mathematics. You get your grants and generate some kind of value either way. But the moment you start claiming that that's actually how the stuff works in the real life, that claim won't stand the ground in front of the scientific community as a whole. To put it simply, in that particular field we're not quite there yet to have a single paradigm, so stop pretending as though there's a scientific consensus on a subject of multiverse theory or any other ultimate explanation, because that's not the case. There are just as many academics, who are skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis, while inflation is of no dispute - so no, inflation of the universe either doesn't imply there's a multiverse or we don't know at this point. Unless there is such a consensus and if you're not an expert in that area yourself, you're simply not qualified enough to pick your pet theories. Now, important thing to realize in here - you're not rejecting anything either, for the exact same reason. Again, if I was a theoretical physicist, I would indeed have to choose some paradigm to work with, but there would always other researchers that would claim it's a waste of time regardless of the said paradigm in the first place. But I'm not in that position, either. In conclusion, for amateurs in the field, the intelectually legitimate position to hold is to not hold any at all.

Everything exists only in our minds by this logic. You seem to start with an assumption what we don't need a multiverse or God to produce this universe. You take universe for granted. Bad assumption to me. Leaves you empty. You see, in physics things won't happen randomly and then produce something epic like elements and planets. You need laws of physics and an elegant universe for all this. Things might look random, but they can't be too random. Things work very well, because if they didn't we wouldn't be here. Multiverse is absolutely already here to challenge uncertainty, randomness and theistic views with one universe.

Ironically Christian theists focus on this observable universe. They don't need "bigger picture" in order to explain this physical world because there is a spiritual realm behind everything. There is a spiritual realm but God made us to live here and concentrate on this life specifically (Hinduism differs from this take quite a lot). And this take on life actually is closer to yours (from a cosmological point of view) since Christians don't need a multiverse to explain this universe, so they are cool with one and only observable expanding universe with a beginning - which is what you call science. Christians don't bring equations from Pslams for instance, they bring solid math like James Clerk Maxwell did. So theists and those believing in one and only Big Bang remind each other to some extent - they don't like multiverses too much since it's too abstract science. Here they agree. They however differ on what made our universe. People like you and those liking the multiverse trust some sort of randomness and purely mechanical mechanisms doing stuff and creating things (because remember- randomness is a bad creator). Multiverse just has more chances to create universes. Your take on this whole concept has zero chances of producing anything elegant (let it be randomness or whatever). So on the other hand theists kinda have similarities with an abstract scientific thinking. On the other hand they agree more with you than with multiverse theorists, because they don't have to assume that there are other universes.

Your claim "Universe appears to be special only because we glorify life and especially human life despite being a lump of chemicals, ultimately. That said, our emotions are no less real because of that and we're bound to act in a certain way. Appreciate it, it's kinda cool" is very unscientific. An elegant universe is cosmologically speaking a widely accepted fact. Like i said it's not only about emotions or life being able to rise up from non organic world. The anthropic principle is not important here. If we trust our capability of seeing and observing physical sciences we come to conclusion that our universe is elegant. Laws of physics and the structure of our cosmos are just few evidences. You could say it's all illusion if you were on the multiverse train. But you are not. You have only one universe which came to existence once and is elegant enough to produce even life. Saying here that it's not elegant seems to me like some nihilistic emotional statement. But it leaves you free somehow- you don't have to explain the fine tuning. The problem is- it is still very much fine tuned, like it or not.

Don't tell me what I 'seem to assume'. I'm not making a claim God isn't necessary for a universe to begin, I'm not convinced by the claim it is - learn the difference. You're the one implying that positive claim - it's your job to convince skeptics, not the other way around. Otherwise known as burden of proof. Universe only seems elegant to us, because we were made by it, in a sense - we're a product of it's physical processes regardless of theological position. If the universe turned out differently, something else might arise and ask the same question. But it would still be wrongly put, since there's an assumption included. In other words, universe was not 'made' to fit us, but we were 'made' to fit it. That’s the key point. Our scientific models are likewise designed in accordance with its rules, there’s nothing really ethereal about that. Any conscious beings could and probably would consider their environment elegant by the very same fallacy, no matter how alien it’d be for us. We’re just another form of matter, but the natural selection isn’t random – in fact that‘s where your sense of ‚elegancy‘ comes from in the first place, it doesn’t exist in the physical sense – which kinda renders the whole notion of universe being elegant categorically wrong. You just think it’s kinda awesome because of your neurons made of physical materials, not because there’s a real essence of awesomeness wowen in the fabric of spacetime.

So you are kinda running from the question itself if you don't believe in randomness? You just leave the whole question open. There are potential candidates but you seem to reject them all. If you are waiting for modern science to choose one of them for you then they already did so. From the purely naturalistic view the multiverse and cyclic models are the only possible explanations for our observable universe. Now the problem is - if they explain fine tuning, what explains them? They kinda have to be some eternal and infinite creating machines or laws in that sense.

Man, really. I don’t reject anything, stop misinterpreting it – rejection of a claim isn’t the same as not being convinced by it, hope you realize it by now. Provide me with an academic consensus first. Meanwhile in reality, nobody is able to effectively defend their position and refute all the criticism beyond a reasonable doubt by now, so I hate to break it to you, but no, they didn’t choose anything. You should visit our physics department. Hell, guys in the very same office are working with the different paradigm.

That would be a very bad court case, because like i said universe is not void but full of dark matter and dark energy instead. Also we don't know too much about black holes, they seem to be some regions of space with a very dense mass and a huge gravity pull. I don't see how this is for or against God in any court case. They are anomalies, something for us not to comprehend with tiny minds, since laws of physics don't apply to them. Assuming our understanding of them is right.

I would rather focus on human suffering than an elegant, expanding, infinite looking universe if i was searching for an argument against the existence of God. Universe can be indeed harsh looking but if we go by pure logic it's too elegant to reject the fact its fine tuned. It's our home to be honest. Our planet is safe from the radiation regardless what happens in other spots of the universe and all the dirt God was playing with (let's both pretend God exists) is made of beautiful elements needed for anything in planets and life. Sometimes very strong secular views make it unnecessarily nihilistic in my opinion. I don't see it as the best logic. I don't think that the longevity of our universe should scare us. We needed all those billion years for things to form. Who said God has to create things by snapping his finger- that would remind a static and super infinite universe. God did it in the way we can now observe to some degree, not in the way we can't observe, because if he creates everything in one second, it's hard really to see that flowy evolution of elements and matter getting organized. But even life seems to have happened unlikely soon, regardless how we feel about time. Many argue that life happened as soon as it could. Also, that expanding part shouldn't be taken lightly. We needed that too. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...erse-expanding

Nah, it’d be a pretty good one. As far as humans are concerned, dark matter and dark energy aren’t exactly any relevant for us and the same goes for black holes, which are kinda numerous in the universe aswell. And that’s not even dressing billions of insanely huge burning spheres all over the place.. because reasons, I guess. Point is, for a universe created by a literally omnipotent being with the pinnacle of that creation being us, there seems to be a lot of unecessary stuff. Why would God bother with complex physics, chemistry and biology in the first place, if he can magic-up a simple, efficient design? Sure, it’s not the ultimate proof of his non-existence, as he may be having some wacky reasons to do so, but as practicality and efficiency obviously wasn’t one of those, it’s still a rather important thing to consider. And yeah, you’d expect the need of billions of years for stuff to form. In a non-designed universe, that is. I know that it’s God and as such is not exactly in the rush, but you can’t argue it isn’t completely pointless from a practical standpoint. As for materialistic positions being too nihilistic, the universe doesn’t care. I’m not gonna pretend I’m a ghost in machine as a coping mechanism. As I said earlier, it doesn’t make my experiences and emotions any less real, so it doesn’t make a difference.

[JamesBond007]

A tangible explanation - that anything is built from the foundation upwards - you cant throw random materials together and create a structure.
Philosophical - that if human life is completely random than it all has no meaning - good deeds, love, kindness or anything means nothing and that humans and our laws are our own gods.
Scientific - the biggest flaw in the "the big bang" theory is that matter can't appear from nowhere - scientists say the universe clumped together over millions of years from nothingness. By scientific theory you cant get 'something' from 'nothing'.

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science. The basic assumption of science is scientific determinism. The laws of science determine the evolution of the universe, given its state at one time. These laws may, or may not, have been decreed by God, but he cannot intervene to break the laws, or they would not be laws. That leaves God with the freedom to choose the initial state of the universe, but even here it seems there may be laws. So God would have no freedom at all".--Stephen Hawking

"Two main explanations have been offered for our planet's peculiar friendliness to life. The design theory says that God made the world, placed it in the Goldilocks zone, and deliberately set up all the details for our benefit. The anthropic approach is very different, and it has a faintly Darwinian feel. The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their respective stars, and not suitable for life. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.

It is a strange fact, incidentally, that religious apologists love the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case. Precisely the opposite is true. The anthropic principle, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence. I think the confusion arises in the religious mind because the anthropic principle is only ever mentioned in the context of the problem that it solves, namely the fact that we live in a life-friendly place. What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other. They are alternatives." --Richard Dawkins

The importance of religion for many people is that it explains how the world came into existence ("Because God created it") and the purpose of their life ("To worship God and do his bidding"). However, these explanations make no sense upon close examination. In particular, 'explaining' the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created -- surely he did not create himself -- and this means that the 'explanation' leaves more unexplained about the world than before the 'explanation' was developed. Likewise, 'explaining' one's purpose in life by saying it is to 'serve God' implies that God's purposes are known, whereas in reality we know nothing about "God's purposes" except what is told to us by the babbling of religious fruitcakes.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." --Bertrand Russell

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely"--Bertrand Russell

************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************

[Methuselah]

Universe only seems elegant to us, because we were made by it, in a sense - we're a product of it's physical processes regardless of theological position. If the universe turned out differently, something else might arise and ask the same question. But it would still be wrongly put, since there's an assumption included. In other words, universe was not 'made' to fit us, but we were 'made' to fit it. That’s the key point. Our scientific models are likewise designed in accordance with its rules, there’s nothing really ethereal about that.

Universe should have been different in a very bad way and this is the problem people are discussing on the video. It seems like it's a philosophical and theological problem for you, for scientists it's a logical problem. Most of the cosmologists on the video are pure atheists- yet they completely accept the fact our universe is fine tuned. One of them, Sean Carroll, says it's fine tuned in the way we will never probably find the answer to. Even the most skeptical one seems to agree on this. Don't rush with life, it's not about life only. Regardless whether discussion would be possible without life. And saying that the universe only seems elegant to us just because we were made by it can be considered as a contradictory claim of some sort.

Man, really. I don’t reject anything, stop misinterpreting it – rejection of a claim isn’t the same as not being convinced by it, hope you realize it by now. Provide me with an academic consensus first.

I appreciate your thoughts, since philosophy of science is something we need to talk about, but your take on things just seems too uncertain for the modern world to me. The most popular modern scientific view lies upon the random creation out of "quantum nothingness" which you seem to reject- you said it couldn't have been just some random stuff happening which is not the modern view. On the other hand you completely reject the idea of a creator and alternative, more scientific models like multiverse models. You have nothing left but uncertainty which is just pure nothing here, this could be a good take for popularizing science but not making science or searching for answers (again you need a question first). Modern cosmologists do have doubts of course, but they tend to choose their views, since there are good candidates. This of course requires more knowledge on topic, but the most logical take would be a bit more certain take on things. You are not doing so which puts the whole discussion in odd light. You said yourself you don't trust randomness producing anything, while in reality people like Hawking were putting their trust in randomness and the multiverse, since it seems to be the best logical outcome of purely naturalistic view on cosmology (from what we can observe). Would you now say he is not scientific? If so do you really have anything to say on this topic? Do you have any alternatives to this? This is the problem you see.

Don't tell me what I 'seem to assume'. I'm not making a claim God isn't necessary for a universe to begin, I'm not convinced by the claim it is - learn the difference. You're the one implying that positive claim - it's your job to convince skeptics, not the other way around.

Don't focus on God here. I said you reject both- God and the multiverse - best candidates to explain our fine tuned universe, something you still reject. What comes to me having to convince skeptics- i already said that there are good candidates to explain our fine tuned universe. You are uncertain about them all, yet you trust things like "universe had to happen and thus happened". It could be quite elegant take agnostically speaking to be honest- to wait for better answers, but it would be so only if you also accepted the fact our universe is fine tuned, something even atheists won't dispute. You seem to focus on some theistic claims of it being fine tuned for life which was only a part of the problem in the video. This is not the case at all. Why is the cosmological constant so small? Why things work so well? You see we talk about universe first and life only later. Video is indeed named like this, as those scientists are talking about it being fine tuned for life too, but it is not only about it if you watched the thing. In reality most of these fellas agree only on the first claim- that it's fine tuned, but not necessarily fine tuned for life. You however don't even have a problem to solve in first place, since you believe 1. things are not fine tuned and 2. things had to happen for some reason. These seem to be your assumptions. I can dig them up if you ask me. Like i said the only good thing in your stance to me is that you are waiting for science to discover more. All of us are doing so. But we he have to dig as well and then see what is intuitively plausible. There is no other way here.

Dark matter and dark energy aren’t exactly any relevant for us and the same goes for black holes.

This is a huge problem discussing the whole topic. You are not really getting all the facts we know about our universe for some strange reason. How is dark matter and dark energy not relevant for us if our universe is mostly made out of it? If you are claiming that universe is void (which is a false claim) and then tell that this would be a good court case against God- you are making strange claims of your own. I don't see any point discussing this unless you first realize that our universe is not "mostly void". Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's just empty space. This is exactly the case with dark matter which is a part of an absolute reality. The fact that our universe is not void is basics of modern cosmology.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...e/dark-matter/

But the moment you start claiming that that's actually how the stuff works in the real life, that claim won't stand the ground in front of the scientific community as a whole. To put it simply, in that particular field we're not quite there yet to have a single paradigm, so stop pretending as though there's a scientific consensus on a subject of multiverse theory or any other ultimate explanation, because that's not the case. There are just as many academics, who are skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis, while inflation is of no dispute - so no, inflation of the universe either doesn't imply there's a multiverse or we don't know at this point. Unless there is such a consensus and if you're not an expert in that area yourself, you're simply not qualified enough to pick your pet theories.

If inflation is of no dispute then the multiverse seems to be of no dispute either, since proper inflationary models predict the existence of the multiverse. Now i agree that it would be beautiful if inflation only solved the fine tuning problems of our universe and stopped right there, but that's not the case, you can ask about this from any physicists. Inflation was invented to explain the fine tuning aspects of our universe but it ended up creating other universes as well, not only making our universe what it is - super homogeneous. You are partly right- we don't know if we are part of the multiverse, but you are not seeing the whole picture, because if the inflation is the right answer for things (we don't know this yet for sure) it will lead to the multiverse. This is a pure fact. Thus all is debatable, including inflation. But if we take inflation away, we have even less explanations for fine tuning. Again, it's a waste of time talking about this if you still reject the idea of fine tuned universe, because the whole concept of inflation was invented to solve this aspect. You seem to reject this well known cosmological fact by talking about life. Like i said it's not the whole thing. The universe is very homogeneous, very elegant. Unless you are on the multiverse train it is too fine tuned for you i would say.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the...onary-universe