So because we exist, that means the universe is fine-tuned for life or there’s just so many of them that we ended up in a one that’s randomly good.
Maybe something else is happening, which is that life… finds a way. Maybe there are far more possible combinations of constants that allow the existence of life than we think because our definition of “life” is so narrow.
At any rate, the concept of our universe having a purpose, and that purpose being life, isn’t supported by the fact that almost all of our universe is extremely hostile to life. If “someone” - not god but maybe god - designed a universe where life was supposed to thrive, why put so goddamn much of it out of reach, and fill all of that with radiation and hard vacuum?
In other words: If this is a universe tuned for life, it’s not a very good one.
Seriously… Such a stupid concept to try and bring back to the maths. It is a purely philosophical question they’re trying to answer. The math doesn’t care why and even just planet Earth isn’t terribly hospitable.
This kind of crap just screams main character syndrome. Someone who wants to think about the Fermi Paradox whilst still feeling special.
You’re assuming that it was only tuned for human life and/or that life is meant to leave its home planet.
A gardener designs a garden so that each plant has a place and doesn’t let any plant take over the whole garden. If “someone” designed this place, it is entirely possible that we are stuck in a corner for a reason.
It’s not just our home planet. Because the universe is expanding we won’t ever get further than our local group before it’s receding faster than the speed of light. Almost all of the universe is inaccessible at liminal speeds.
If I thought the universe was made “for” anything it would probably be black holes.
The point is that you are assuming “inaccessibility” is incompatible with a universe “made for life”. But it’s entirely possible that inaccessibility is a feature, not a bug.
At the risk of anthopomorphizing, every nonhuman life I’m responsible for is given very little access to move elsewhere. The fish stay in their tank, the dogs stay in the yard, the plants stay in their pots. They are not meant to freely roam (or seed) the rest of my town, much less the universe.
Ok, but there are countless planets within that space that might contain life.
And if someone were intentionally trying to prevent life from colonizing other planets, then lots and lots of empty space between planets would be a good solution.
So because we exist, that means the universe is fine-tuned for life or there’s just so many of them that we ended up in a one that’s randomly good.
Maybe something else is happening, which is that life… finds a way. Maybe there are far more possible combinations of constants that allow the existence of life than we think because our definition of “life” is so narrow.
At any rate, the concept of our universe having a purpose, and that purpose being life, isn’t supported by the fact that almost all of our universe is extremely hostile to life. If “someone” - not god but maybe god - designed a universe where life was supposed to thrive, why put so goddamn much of it out of reach, and fill all of that with radiation and hard vacuum?
In other words: If this is a universe tuned for life, it’s not a very good one.
Seriously… Such a stupid concept to try and bring back to the maths. It is a purely philosophical question they’re trying to answer. The math doesn’t care why and even just planet Earth isn’t terribly hospitable.
This kind of crap just screams main character syndrome. Someone who wants to think about the Fermi Paradox whilst still feeling special.
You’re assuming that it was only tuned for human life and/or that life is meant to leave its home planet.
A gardener designs a garden so that each plant has a place and doesn’t let any plant take over the whole garden. If “someone” designed this place, it is entirely possible that we are stuck in a corner for a reason.
It’s not just our home planet. Because the universe is expanding we won’t ever get further than our local group before it’s receding faster than the speed of light. Almost all of the universe is inaccessible at liminal speeds.
If I thought the universe was made “for” anything it would probably be black holes.
The point is that you are assuming “inaccessibility” is incompatible with a universe “made for life”. But it’s entirely possible that inaccessibility is a feature, not a bug.
At the risk of anthopomorphizing, every nonhuman life I’m responsible for is given very little access to move elsewhere. The fish stay in their tank, the dogs stay in the yard, the plants stay in their pots. They are not meant to freely roam (or seed) the rest of my town, much less the universe.
Then why make so much space if it’s just going to sit there empty? Seems like quite a waste of effort
Who says the universe is empty? It’s mostly inaccessible by humans, but it might be teeming with life. Though not necessarily intelligent life.
There’s not enough density in space for it to sustain life.
Ok, but there are countless planets within that space that might contain life.
And if someone were intentionally trying to prevent life from colonizing other planets, then lots and lots of empty space between planets would be a good solution.
There’s so much more empty space than there is planets, though