RE: Snicker Snack, went the Vorpal Razor

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:21:19 -0700

SZ: Pim, I don't know if I'm the only one (perhaps), but I REALLY
don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please? The
usual "fine-tuning" argument goes something like this:

(1) The physical laws, coupling constants, and initial conditions
of the universe must have a very narrow range of forms and values
in order to permit the evolution of a universe in which life could
one day appear. This gives the powerful impression that these
parameters and conditions were intentionally "tuned" in order to
produce life.

Your stated alternative is that:

(2) "We are finely-tuned to the universe."

Can you please explain this in detail in a couple of paragraphs?
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't understand what you mean and I
would really like to.

I don't think you are dense, it's just that my mind and my fingers do not always talk to eachother.
Let's see if I can convince my fingers to type a response.

Alternative one, the universe appears to be finely tuned to support life, in this case us.
ALternative two, life is finely tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. It appears to us that the universe is finely tuned to us when in fact we are finely tuned to the universe. If the universe's parameters would have been off, we would not have existed and there would have either been no life form or an alternative lifeform tuned to the universe.