The universe appears to be “fine-tuned”: the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it.
2. Thus, the universe as we understand it is an extremely unlikely event/series of events.
3. Any such extremely unlikely event/series of events is best explained not by natural processes—such as natural selection for explaining the presence of diverse life forms—but by intelligent design.
4. Given these two possibilities for explanation, intelligent design is the best explanation for the creation and nature of the universe. (3, 4 DS)

Agree with your assessment of the first premise. Assumes the answer, it also assumes we are at an end point in our understanding of our universe or even what universes with the slight variations of physical constraints would look like either.

I feel that when people say “intelligent design” they are referring more to an intent to produce aesthetically pleasing mathematical symmetry from a wilful or conscious deity. There also seems to be an assumption that the aesthetic values existed before the things the values were based on did.

We don’t build buildings. We make aesthetically pleasing and sculpted tree houses and mountains. We didn’t even used to do that, we valued the safety and functionality of our architecture and as it improved so did our appreciation for it. Nature is intelligent only in that it taught us to be intelligent in Nature.

For me, this doesn’t discount the possibility of a god. However it discounts the possibility of a god of creation. An entity that preceded the universe and intelligently based it off what?

Even if say we examine intelligent design through simulation theory it still doesn’t hold up. We can learn this through our own creation of computer simulations. We use them to emulate reality. No video game or simulation can show you anything that that doesn’t contain aspects of reality no matter how seemingly abstract. This tells us a few things about the outside universe our hypothetical simulation take place in. It’s similar to our own reality, it is the inspiration for what we call the natural laws of our universe. So it must have natural laws, therefore we would still just be a simulated universe inside a natural one with which intelligence itself is inspired by.

I think the only thing the argument does, is put paid to the notion that 'man is the outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms' (Bertrand Russell). This is one of the core ideas associated with 20th century 'Enlightenment rationalism' in essays such as Russell's A Free Man's Worship, from which that quote is taken. It is practically assumed as a kind of article of folk-wisdom, that science knows or proves that life originated with a kind of biochemical chance, a lightning strike or an undersea vent that starts a chain reaction, or that, at any rate, life arose by chance, and just happened to produce h. sapiens as one of its outcomes.

But the philosophical issue is that the sequence of events leading to the formation of stars, and then the formation of complex matter, all seem to point backwards to some prior condition. But if you trace the whole sequence back through time to the 'singularity', then no initiating configuration can be found, as the laws of physics themselves break down at that point. Yet it remains the case that there are a small number of constants, the slightest variation of which would result in a chaotic state where matter wouldn't form at all. There's no natural reason why some of these ratios ought to exist at just that level, meaning that there's no further theory which explains why they must be so. They simply are, and they are such that the Universe formed. They're not plausibly explained by chance, as chance itself requires there be some order against which the notion is meaningful; in a state of pure chaos the notion of 'chance' is not even meaningful. (This is the subject of the book by British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers.)

So I think the issue seems to be that 'randomness' or 'chance' doesn't do justice to the order that science observes. But the question is, then, whether the only two choices are chance, on the one hand, or intentional design, on the other. And I think one thing that might be stated is that, whichever of the two obtain, or whether there are only two options, is not itself a scientific question. Natural science assumes the order of nature; I think it's a mistake to believe that it can, or should, explain that order. But even if it can't explain it, it's then a stretch to argue that therefore it's the result of intentional design. For those so inclined, I think natural theology is justified in claiming that there's a prior cause. But what I think they're not entitled to claim is that this is something that can be proven. After all, for the believer, the Universe is evidence; that's what makes them believers!

Here's an anecdote that I often refer to on this forum. George Lemaître, as is well known, originated the notion of the 'big bang' cosmology, although he didn't coin the phrase (that was coined much later by Fred Hoyle, who never accepted the idea.) He published his paper on 'the primeval atom' in an obscure Belgian journal to not much notice, but over the next decade or so the idea began to circulate. And one of the main reasons it was resisted was because it sounded so much like the notion of 'creation ex nihilo'! After all, it proposes that the entire vast universe exploded into existence from a single infinitesimal point, in a single infinitesimal instant! In fact this seemed so obvious that:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict. — Wikipedia

I think his attitude is exemplary. Like Thomas Aquinas, he didn't accept there was a conflict between science and faith, but that each were facets of a larger truth.

It thus seems to be question-begging to call the existence of such events “fine-tuning,” as it implies design from the outset. These remarks apply to the universe as a whole as well, I think. I’d like to hear responses to this objection. — ModernPAS

But the whole point of the anthropic principle/fine-tuning argument is that the causal chain that leads to the development of living beings, really does seem to stretch right back to the 'singularity'. Opponents often say, well of course that's the case, otherwise we wouldn't be here to debate it! But I don't think that objection does justice to the magnitude of the mystery, which is the sense that, as scientist Freeman Dyson put it, 'the Universe knew we were coming'.

Behe, Dembski, and others make the claim that, for example, life forms appear to be “irreducibly complex, — ModernPAS

This conflates two separate issues, which is the 'anthropic cosmological principle', on the one hand, and (mainly Protestant and often fundamentalist) arguments for 'intelligent design' on the other. They're separate issues.

Really, all of the issues involved in both these arguments are pretty vast. There is a great book, The Cosmic Anthropic Principle by Barrow and Tipler, published quite a few years ago, which is an exhaustive survey of all of the arguments, pro and con, for the 'fine-tuning argument'. It's worth knowing about, even if you don't wade through all the text. Also the more recent A Fortunate Universe, Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis, two Australian physicists. Neither book has an obviously religious agenda to push, although there are some undercurrents, perhaps, but they cover the issues. Paul Davies 'The Goldilocks Enigma' (also published as Cosmic Jackpot) is another.

1. The universe appears to be “fine-tuned”: the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it. — ModernPAS

This is the argument Aristotle put forward thousands of years ago, concerning the existence of any object. In this case, the op, the object is called "the universe".

Each object is distinct and unique from every other object. Every object has a 'form" which is proper to itself alone. What gives an object its uniqueness is what he called accidentals. The accidentals are what separates one object from another, when numerous objects are judged as being the same type of object, or the same class.

The law of identity is used to recognize the distinctness and uniqueness of each particular object. Even if two objects are judged to be the same according to kind or type, they are unique according to accidentals, and, each object must have all the accidentals specific to that object, in order to be the unique object which it is. Accordingly, each object, when it comes into existence, must be the exact and precise object which it is, or else it would not be the object which it is.

Now, the argument is that an object is not random matter, and cannot be random matter, because to be an object requires that matter exist in an organized way. it must have a form. So when we put this premise with the one above, "each object, when it comes into existence, must be the exact and precise object which it is, or else it would not be the object which it is", we find that "what the object is", (the form of the particular) must necessarily precede the existence of the object. If the form of the object did not precede its material existence, then the object could be something other than it is, and this is contrary to the law of identity.

Therefore, when we consider the existence of "the universe", as an object, it is necessary to recognize that "what the object is", the "form" of that particular object, is necessarily prior to its material existence.

For those so inclined, I think natural theology is justified in claiming that there's a prior cause. But what I think they're not entitled to claim is that this is something that can be proven. After all, for the believer, the Universe is evidence; that's what makes them believers! — Wayfarer

Actually the cosmological argument, if properly formulated, provides such a proof. What is require though is an understanding of the principles. Those who do not understand the principles reject the argument as incoherent.

The key principles to the argument are the dichotomous distinction between potential and actual, and the premise that only something actual may act as a cause. This excludes the possibility of infinite potential, as such a thing would be incapable of bringing into existence anything actual.

A simple representation of the argument goes like this. We observe that the potential for existence of an object precedes in time, the actual existence of that object. By inductive reason therefore, in the case of every object, the potential for existence of that object precedes its existence. However, a potential can only be actualized by something actual. Therefore the potential for existence cannot precede actual existence in an absolute sense, because that potential could never be actualized. We put this together with the inductive conclusion that the potential for the object always precedes its actual existence, and we find that it is necessary to conclude that there is an actuality which is prior to all objects.

Much modern speculation refers to the infinite potential of quantum flux or some such thing infinite potential. But these speculators ignore the necessity imposed by the cosmological argument, of an actuality which acts as a cause, to bring an actual object into existence from the proposed field of quantum flux, or 'infinite potential'. This means that the proposed quantum flux which is supposed to be prior to the universe, is not a true "infinite potential", and is really limited by this pre-existing actuality. The need to recognize this pre-existing actuality is ignored when these speculators posit the emergence of time as "space-time".

To state it succinctly, modern theories of "chance", which propose that the universe originated in quantum fluctuations, are simply incoherent. Space-time is understood as a property of the universe, which emerges with the universe. The quantum "fluctuations" which are responsible, as cause of, the universe's existence are necessarily prior to the existence of the universe. Such "fluctuations" without space or time are incoherent. In this case "fluctuation" is a term referring to an impossibility, activity without space or time.

In other words, almost every event appears extremely unlikely from the perspective of some point in the distant past before that event. — ModernPAS

You're on the right track here, I think. But the fine-tuning argument does not rely on there being a long chain of events that, cumulative, is unlikely. The basic form is simply that the exact values of the physical constants are "fine tuned". There is only a single "throw of the dice" required, all else follows from that.

However, there is a sense in which every observer is, by necessity, special. We can only observe fine-tuned universes because only those universes have observers (known as the anthropic principle).

Behe, Dembski, and others make the claim that, for example, life forms appear to be “irreducibly complex,” such that they could not have developed from simpler forms, but must have been designed in their complexity from the start. — ModernPAS

As Wayfarer has stated, this intelligent design argument is distinct from the standard "fine-tuning" one.

But the whole point of the anthropic principle/fine-tuning argument is that the causal chain that leads to the development of living beings, really does seem to stretch right back to the 'singularity'. Opponents often say, well of course that's the case, otherwise we wouldn't be here to debate it! But I don't think that objection does justice to the magnitude of the mystery, which is the sense that, as scientist Freeman Dyson put it, 'the Universe knew we were coming'. — Wayfarer

I don't really see what additional mystery you are referring to here. Per the anthropic principle, we'd expect the universe to "know we were coming", because we'd only exist in such a universe.

So I think the issue seems to be that 'randomness' or 'chance' doesn't do justice to the order that science observes. But the question is, then, whether the only two choices are chance, on the one hand, or intentional design, on the other. And I think one thing that might be stated is that, whichever of the two obtain, or whether there are only two options, is not itself a scientific question. Natural science assumes the order of nature; I think it's a mistake to believe that it can, or should, explain that order. But even if it can't explain it, it's then a stretch to argue that therefore it's the result of intentional design. — Wayfarer

Yeah, unfortunately the difference between physics and metaphysics is often ignored in these debates.

To state it succinctly, modern theories of "chance", which propose that the universe originated in quantum fluctuations, are simply incoherent. Space-time is understood as a property of the universe, which emerges with the universe. The quantum "fluctuations" which are responsible, as cause of, the universe's existence are necessarily prior to the existence of the universe. Such "fluctuations" without space or time are incoherent. In this case "fluctuation" is a term referring to an impossibility, activity without space or time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This specific incoherence is a result of the incoherence of special and general relativity and Quantum physics. In quantum physics, space and time are static givens, whereas under relativity they're dynamic properties.

Let me give an example to make my point.

1000 years ago there is already a world where you are possible, determinist would say even inevitable. To make a fair comparison you would need to address why would laws of physics even be 'possible', and perhaps also suggest why these particular values were in fact inevitable. And by doing so you would also imply that laws are/were not static, but changing, evolving. There is nothing wrong with it, just saying.

Natural selection holds that complex life-forms do not necessarily evolve from less complex forms by adding complexity to achieve a more sophisticated form of a particular mechanism-such as flagella for some bacteria.

So then how did flagella come to be if not from something less complex?

I don't really see what additional mystery you are referring to here. Per the anthropic principle, we'd expect the universe to "know we were coming", because we'd only exist in such a universe. — Echarmion

The mystery, or the problem, is that the Universe can't have 'known we were coming' because it's supposed to be vast ensemble of inorganic matter and energy. The very thing which Enlightenment rationalism strips out of the picture is intelligence, intention and goal-directedness which in all previous philosophy were assumed to have been provided by God. But the 'fine-tuning' argument seems to imply that the conditions for the production of complex matter and living beings were indeed instantiated or configured in the Cosmos well before any beings capable of intentionality evolved. And that sounds very much like the work of an intelligent agent.

In quantum physics, space and time are static givens, whereas under relativity they're dynamic properties. — Echarmion

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that according to standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, energy and time are conjugate variables. This is due to the uncertainty relationship between time and frequency inherent within any Fourier transform.

An informal, heuristic meaning of the principle is the following: A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must be defined accurately, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy. — Wikipedia uncertainty principle

ID also has argument about chances required to mutate DNA while not breaking the code already in it. Something about random changes to MS Word software and monkeys typing on a typewriter.

But chemistry doesn't work randomly. Speaking about moderate Earth conditions, with H and O you will get H2O, not H3O5 nor H2O3. There is freedom, but there are also rules. And when water forms snowflakes, they are all "random", but nevertheless none fail to become a beautiful crystal pattern .

I will just quickly conclude now, maybe we should not be surprised if 'natural mutation' in more cases than not actually produces fully functional organism of some kind, not just birth defects and such. Although, what exactly is natural mutation, as opposed to other kinds of mutations, may not be clear or differentiated precisely at this time.

Martin Rees, in Just Six Numbers, names/describes six quantities/values that have to fall within a relatively narrow range for the universe as we know it to exist.

The six numbers* presented are (this copied from a review, not from the book itself).
1. the ratio of the electromagnetic force
2. the force the binds atomic nuclei together
3. the amount of material of the universe
4. the cosmological constant
5. the measure of the “unevenness” of the universe
6. the number of dimensions of the universe.

*More on the six numbers can be read at Amazon in their "look inside" function for this book, at "Chapter One."

Rees goes into the why, the how as much a possible in a popular science book, and the what would happen if it wasn't. In many cases, for example, variant universes would not last very long.

At the end he introduces the idea of the multiverse, being the idea that universes are coming into being and going out of being in the multiverse all the time.

In short, that any "fine-tuning" there may be in ours is easily accounted for by its inevitability in the multiverse.

It also accords with this comment by 180 @180 Proof
"I'm not picking any new nits which generations of scientists and other defeasible thinkers haven't already thoroughly picked when I point out that given the volume of this planet almost entirely consists of conditions inimicable to life and, likewise, the volume of the observable universe is exponentially even more lifeless, it's patently unsound to conclude anything other than that the cosmos either is (A) "fine-tuned" for lifelessness or (B) not "fine-tuned" at all, but only appears "fine-tuned" due our self-serving/flattering cognitive biases (such as how we misrecognize that our scientific models & philosophical concepts work because we "fine-tune" them in order to anthropocentricize life, earth & the universe (i.e. mistaking our maps for territory à la reification fallacy)). If the MWI is a "cop-out", as you(?) say, Wayf, then by comparison "fine-tuning" is a fact-free, just-so story so ad hoc and incoherent it's not even wrong."

Rees quickly acknowledges that the multiverse is an at-this-time untestable conjecture. But choose your poison: irrational, nonsensical, anthropocentric supernaturalism? Or something built on and based in reason? Fine-tuning, then, takes its place as a fairy tale kept up by the vicious because they're selling something.

But choose your poison: irrational, nonsensical, anthropocentric supernaturalism? Or something built on and based in reason? — tim wood

:blush:

:clap: :cool:

:up: :up: Re: @Metaphysician Undercover "Spacetime" metrics are meaningless, or do not obtain, at or below the planck scale (e.g. Bell's theorem ... the Hartle-Hawking state ... etc).

...I point out that given the volume of this planet almost entirely consists of conditions inimicable to life and, likewise, the volume of the observable universe is exponentially even more lifeless, it's patently unsound to conclude anything other than that the cosmos either is (A) "fine-tuned" for lifelessness or (B) not "fine-tuned" at all, but only appears "fine-tuned" due our self-serving/flattering cognitive biases (such as how we misrecognize that our scientific models...

It misses the point, which is that life, civilizations, internet, space travel... what you think, what I'm writing right now, all this is encoded and predestined in those few numbers. This is extraordinary regardless of how devoid of life the rest of universe may be. Just as a zip format for compression of information probably is already violating several of our physics, mathematics, and logic laws.

writing this post for credit in a “Philosophy of Religion” class — ModernPAS

Oh, that's where the sudden influx of phil. of religion posts comes from? Are you guys all taking the same class?

Let’s look at the premises. It seems to be true that the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it. Thus premise 2 appears to be correct. — ModernPAS

No, from the fact that the universe is in some way* sensitive to variations in certain physical constants doesn't follow that the universe "is an extremely unlikely event." For the universe to be such an event, it has to be embedded in some kind of causal event flow. The argument makes an implicit assumption that on naturalism, something gave rise to the universe with its known laws of constants. Not only that, but it also assumes that on naturalism, the process that led to the creation of the universe as we know it resulted in a random selection of its known fundamental constants. Neither of these assumptions are justified. While one can imagine such a naturalistic scenario, naturalism in general is not beholden to it.

* It is actually not easy to articulate just what that sensitivity means. Most physical constants are real numbers that could hypothetically vary within an infinite range. If so, then there is no distinction between fine-tuning and coarse-tuning: any finite interval you care to choose would represent an infinitely small fraction of the full range. This consideration nullifies the intuitively impressive numerology that presenters of the fine-tuning argument usually bring to bear.

* It is actually not easy to articulate just what that sensitivity means. Most physical constants are real numbers that could hypothetically vary within an infinite range. If so, then there is no distinction between fine-tuning and coarse-tuning: any finite interval you care to choose would represent an infinitely small fraction of the full range. This consideration nullifies the intuitively impressive numerology that presenters of the fine-tuning argument usually bring to bear — SophistiCat

:100: :clap:

The mystery, or the problem, is that the Universe can't have 'known we were coming' because it's supposed to be vast ensemble of inorganic matter and energy. The very thing which Enlightenment rationalism strips out of the picture is intelligence, intention and goal-directedness which in all previous philosophy were assumed to have been provided by God. But the 'fine-tuning' argument seems to imply that the conditions for the production of complex matter and living beings were indeed instantiated or configured in the Cosmos well before any beings capable of intentionality evolved. And that sounds very much like the work of an intelligent agent. — Wayfarer

It only sounds like the work of an intelligent agent if we apply the Copernican principle. If we apply the anthropic principle, the mystery entirely disappears. The universe is made for us because we live in it, not the other way round.

Applying the Copernican principle to self-sorting problems caused absurd conclusions, as the doomsday argument illustrates.

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that according to standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, energy and time are conjugate variables. This is due to the uncertainty relationship between time and frequency inherent within any Fourier transform. — Metaphysician Undercover

But doesn't the state having a frequency require an "objective" time as a given?

all this is encoded and predestined in those few numbers. This is extraordinary regardless of how devoid of life the rest of universe may be. Just as a zip format for compression of information probably is already violating several of our physics, mathematics, and logic laws. — Zelebg

Just as the outcome of throwing dice is encoded into the dice?

Zip formats don't violate nothin'. They simply omit information.

What's emerges as extraordinary is that people like you, presumably educated and smart, find this extraordinary. Your beliefs are like the camel that you let get its nose in your tent. Apparently he's taken over your tent. That's the hazard of camels. And why we think camel keepers are wise, while they who keep actual camels think it's obvious. The same with major religious thinkers. Being actual keepers of these beliefs, they don't get confused about them. And if you pay attention, neither do the people who preach the reality of the beliefs, but that in every case, they want you to send money!

Agree with your assessment of the first premise. Assumes the answer, it also assumes we are at an end point in our understanding of our universe or even what universes with the slight variations of physical constraints would look like either. — Mark Dennis

Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.

Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.

Indeed. I feel it also ignores the variables of states we do know about. These sorts of arguments are nearly always made in relation to the physics of earth as opposed to physics of the universe or other planets. We are starting to realise that biological life can exist in many different places and they believe Tardigrades can potentially survive in space. Even if we hypothesise a universe where there was more anti-matter than matter at the beginning of the universe (if it was the beginning anyway) we still have no way of knowing what the different properties anti-matter may have had to matter. Even the name anti-matter is misleading, it’s based on the one characteristic that we could know about it. That it cancelled out matter. However by this definition, a universe formed of what we call “antimatter” would hypothesise that our universe was also made of “antimatter”; If there is nothing so different between the two, that a universe comprised of either could produce its own forms of intelligent biological life.

:up:

What's emerges as extraordinary is that people like you, presumably educated and smart, find this extraordinary.

Emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter is unremarkable then? Perhaps that's exactly what you would expect to get when you combine several types of particles with few simple properties?

The universe is made for us because we live in it, not the other way round. — Echarmion

:up:

It only sounds like the work of an intelligent agent if we apply the Copernican principle. If we apply the anthropic principle, the mystery entirely disappears. — Echarmion

Well, I agree with you, but that is precisely what is at issue:

Copernican principle:
In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not 'privileged observers' of the universe

Anthropic principle:
the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence.

I would be keen to hear how these can be reconciled.

x

Emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter is unremarkable then? Perhaps that's exactly what you would expect to get when you combine several types of particles with few simple properties? — Zelebg

I think that's the settled belief. Presumably sunlight, some chemicals, and things get going. Do you have another account that does not involve voodoo, magic, or the supernatural?

Where the anthropic principle is a problem for the mainstream p.o.v. is that it thought it had done away with the idea that 'intentionality' is fundamental to the cosmos.

From the scientific~secular p.o.v., intentionality is only ever exhibited by intelligent agents, and intelligent agents are only ever the product of the evolutionary process, which again is strictly not teleological, not directed towards any aim, but fortuitous in some fundamental way.

Through the long processes of physical evolution, intentionality emerges as a by-product of fundamentally non-intentional cellular processes - an attitude which is made explicit by Daniel Dennett who is the archetypal 'ultra-darwinist' (along with Jacques Monod and others of that ilk).

The idea that evolutionary processes might have an underlying aim or telos is the heresy of orthogenesis:

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".

In his 2012 book, Mind and Cosmos, Thomas Nagel briefly considers, although doesn't develop, the notion that the development of organic life might be a consequence of an intrinsic drive in nature towards self-awareness:

Nagel’s starting point is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.’ ¹

I think this is one of the reasons for the appeal of neo-Aristotelianism, which re-introduces the concept of formal and final causes which modern science had thought to have banished.

It only sounds like the work of an intelligent agent if we apply the Copernican principle. If we apply the anthropic principle, the mystery entirely disappears. The universe is made for us because we live in it, not the other way round.

The mystery only disappears if we ignore larger mystery this little mystery is riding on, and the big mystery is emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter, regardless of how fine tuned or not we may imagine the universe might be.

Fine tuning concept only exists because we think most of the values given to those constants and laws would result in something unable to facilitate life or even sustain any kind of compounds of matter. But we don't know if it is even possible for those numbers to be different, and we can't even solve completely deterministic 3-body problem. We simply have no idea, and best of all it doesn't matter.

Suppose whatever arbitrary numbers are used to define those constants and laws, still we somehow end up with some kind of universe and some kind of sentient beings living in it. No more fine tuning mystery, but the mystery remains, and it's an old one everyone agrees we are clueless about - emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter, driven only through combinatorics of several particles with few simple properties. There is nothing anthropic about it, except that it's kind of wicked.

Suppose whatever arbitrary numbers are used to define those constants and laws, still we somehow end up with some kind of universe and some kind of sentient beings living in it. No more fine tuning mystery, but the mystery remains, and it's an old one everyone agrees we are clueless about - emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter, driven only through combinatorics of several particles with few simple properties. There is nothing anthropic about it, except that it's kind of wicked. — Zelebg

We have a couple of good ideas about how life came about, though we cannot decide on a specific one with certainty. We aren't clueless about it.

As for consciousness, the tricky thing is figuring out what it is in the first place. We don't even know who or what is or isn't conscious, apart from ourselves.

We have a couple of good ideas about how life came about, though we cannot decide on a specific one with certainty. We aren't clueless about it.

I'm talking about something else. We have a clue how it works, but not why. We see innate affinity of lipids to spontaneously form membranes, we understand their properties and thus laws dictating this dynamics, but why these lipids exist in the first place, why are they even possible, that's the mystery.

It's only 'fine tuning' mystery if we on top of that assume those chemical possibilities are there due to exactly defined constants and laws for precisely that, but this assumption is irrelevant as it can not solve the original mystery it is derived from.

Apperantly there is a huge landscape of possibilities woven into only a few constant numbers. It's like question "why is there something rather than nothing", only worse, since this 'something' not only exists already, but also has this weird built-in affinity to make itself alive and conscious.