The spacial human condition lends itself to many weird and idiotic primitive interpretations... 

 

--------------------------------

NARRATION
It seems like scientific blasphemy to even ask, but has the universe been set up for us?

Dr Graham Phillips
Here's the thing. When scientists look far into the heavens or deeply down into the forces of nature, they see something deeply mysterious. If some of the laws that govern our cosmos were only slightly different, intelligent life simply couldn't exist. It appears that the universe has been fine-tuned so that intelligent beings like you and me can be here.

Professor Leonard Susskind
There's all sorts of fine-tunings that have to be matched in order for us to be here.

Dr Sean Carroll
It's absolutely a huge issue for modern physics and astronomy.

NARRATION
Eminent 20th-century astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was blunt.

Professor Paul Davies
'It looks like a superintellect has monkeyed with physics' was the way he put it. He was very strong about this.

NARRATION
The problem is - to write the fine-tuning off as merely coincidences seems far-fetched.

Professor Brian Greene
Look, if I see my kid eating a chocolate-chip cookie and my kid said, 'Oh, the cookie jar fell over, and the cookie fell into my hand,' will I believe that, or do I believe he stuck his hand in and grabbed the cookie? I believe the latter because the former explanation is so fine-tuned. The cookie jar would have to fall over at the right moment, his hand would have to be there just to catch it. That just seems unbelievable.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3836881.htm

 

----------------------

Here we are... caught between a chocolate-chip cookie-jar and modern physics toying with designed metaphysics, to deal with the Higgs boson and the entire universe... and more...
I can only laugh. 

As some very bright scientific minds postulate these very fascinating ideas (see the episode of Catalyst) — from multi-universes to "our descendants having instigated the big bang" in order for them to exist (in the future) — or aliens — one is caught in this web of fine-tuned coincidences... and some exciting loopy science fiction... 

The first thing we should understand is that our own physiology is still "primitive" ... We are primitive being, despite believing we're at the top of the thinking tree on this planet.
Gus tends to be a bit more sober, possibly more backwards than some of these extremely clever number-crunchers — but while drinking some robust Shiraz, Gus indulges at the fountain of Chaos theory.... Some aspect of this weird theory relies on unpredictability, until specification of key points and necessary positions for the next to exist.

And this could be what has made this peculiar universal so precisely fined-tuned with its set-up, in which the earth exists and evolution took place in a chaotic manner. So far so good, all the fine-tuning has gone through the "balancing moments" in the creation of matter and energy as we relatively know it... 

For many years, divine concepts have permeated and polluted most of our small brains... 
These divine concepts with their many variations from monotheism to multi-gods have also been conveniently used by our rulers to pepper some moralisationing sauce and some behavioural salt onto our animal aspects of humanity... 
As we evolved from apes, we saw an empirical need to mostly prevent higgledy-piggledy copulation, thus protecting a prospective system. Such restriction would be mostly beneficial to nurture the beginning of a fragile social construct in evolution — where rape thus starts to be defined by the system as unwelcome. The invention of god was thus as good as any other brain massaging, such as attaching values of money to things we exchange... 
But these extra "moral divine" dimensions are way below the scientific focus, even in the most ludicrous fine-tuned framework...

Coincidences may not be always the way to explain universal mechanics — though many coincidences are welcomed in Quantum mechanics and they work well. In my view, the random oscillations of chaos happen until specifics can only happen coincidentally through gates of unique possibilities in a sea of unpredictability....
I have already postulated, on this website, that in order to exist, the universe needs "flaws"... I am not the first person to express this concept. Einstein was already on this turf and most scientists these days called these "imperfections". A "perfect" big bang would only lead to a boring blancmange in thinning perfection with no other effect than a perfect dilution towards the void of nothingness. No creative action, no life. Perfection.
By the way, the concept of a "big bang" is derived from studying galaxies that are scooting away from each other, and all are getting away from a central point in the universe. This is a solid scientific observation that is difficult to dispute.
Flaws or "imperfections" are what bring variations and then speciation of Quantum bits and of their energies — from gravity, weak and strong atomic forces, plus electromagnetism. 
Some of these flaws or "imperfections" have been mapped in the known universe, thus we know where variations of intensity and of "density" happen. The evidence of differences, in order to reconcile the observed lot, make us accept and discover the necessity of dark matter and dark energy that act as super-fluidity in the system. Without dark matter and dark energy, the universe would be collapsing on itself rather too quickly... We would not be here wondering about this. The scientists who work on these concepts are bright minds and brilliant mathematicians — in the tradition of Laplace and Poincarré...
Without Laplace transforms and Poincarré's derivative equations, Einstein would have drawn a big zip.

Life itself developed pain and death, possibly as self-protection and insurance in a system that will change according to its environmental parts, and in which chance can also be a diminishing ingredient for and against survival as time goes by. And this is the way life constructed itself, accidentally and reactively from changing environments on this planet — and possibly in the solar system on other planets in which the environmental factors became very difficult for survival of life. There is still a very tiny environmental window for some life still existing on Mars, but definitely not on Venus.
Some scientist are studying the possibility of multi-universe, though there is buckley's chance than these could meet without creating massive havoc to each one of them. 
The other concept that this universe could be some game played by a kid in his garage is entertaining, but it's basically the same delusion as a god pulling strings of devils and angels to make our life of misery with hope of winning something...
Not so strangely, due to the construct of life, most of the images of the monotheistic god that we have created is that of a benevolent sadist... Most religious person accept this contradiction because we cannot escape pain nor death and we invent an imaginary "eternal" escape hatch, apart for atheistic interpretations. Believers thus explain this duality of benevolence and sadism as our own fault, our ancestral fault, the "original sin", that to say the least, has nothing to do with us presently, but we accept it... Well, religious people accept it. I don't. I am an atheist.

Despite the edge of the cosmos being still far away from our grasp, the sciences of our relative smaller galactic world are quite refined and accurate. Our knowledge has made leaps and bounds in this area, including the honing on this planet's mechanics — a planet we call earth — from its "birth" till now, in evolution. Unlike social statistical polls for an election, scientific statistics cannot accept one aberration in the study, until the aberration is explained or verified in the context of the study. This can take many years to verify or dismiss what could have been a wrong or right observation. 

This is where I always come back to global warming.

I cannot escape this next step... The planet dynamics dictate that within a set of physical environmental conditions for the planet, the atmosphere reacts in a specific manner to its gaseous mix... Science has become very precise on this fine-tuned understanding. Predictions are possible but they are so contrary to our decisions of social comforts, that we tend to dismiss the whole idea as gobbledegook. It's not...

For a planet to maintain its surface temperature within some lovely livable limits, one has to accept an accidental fine-tuning in which the mix of surface elements vary in minute quantities, yet influence the temperature of the surface — all within some bracketed limits.

We know that scientist don't know "exactly" what will happen should say CO2 go over 500 ppm in the atmosphere... Even meteorologists have difficulty in predicting the weather in an unsettled system three days in advance.
But climate change scientist know that the temperature will rise still likely within the range of survival, but all our comforts will be highly compromised in equatorial, tropical and temperate regions. Instead of the atmospheric temperature average being 15 degrees Celsius, it is likely to reach 30 degrees Celsius by 2250. This will leave sub-temperate and polar regions as the only places for humanity to live. 
Welcome to a long time ago, many millions of years ago when the planet did not have any polar ice... Though the Arctic will have melted long ago, the Antarctic will still have a smaller covering of ice... This dire prospect is only within the next 240 years. Carry on another 100 years and the problem can be compounded into a major collapse of life on earth. This has happened before.
Holy crap. We are in trouble and proper scientists know this. This is serious shit...
So, if you are a king or a dynasty-maker, make sure your fortune is not made on the back of carbon and carbon dioxide profiteering... Your descendants will never forgive you. The science of global warming is correct...
Gus Leonisky