Get a load of this:
More recently, scientists have pointed out that if one tweaks many of the dimensionless physical constants — numbers like pi that are independent of units and simply exist as fundamental ideas — none of the cosmos we see would exist. One of these numbers is omega, the density parameter, which pits gravity’s pull against the expanding push of dark energy. If gravity were stronger, the universe would have long since ceased expanding, and would have collapsed back down in a reverse Big Bang, often called the “Big Crunch.” If dark energy were stronger, then the universe would race away from itself so that no matter would stick together and stars, planets, and people could never form.
If the cosmos were truly a random and senseless arrangement of particles, it seems eerie or suspicious to many that these two forces balance so delicately. Korey Hanes, “Are the Laws of the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?” at Discover
Of course, Haynes raises the idea of the multiverse (science’s assisted suicide) but then acknowledges, “we’re drastically short on data.” It sounds as if Haynes thinks data actually matters. Others treat the multiverse as a sort of charm against the importance of data. Once it’s invoked, the weight of the evidence becomes irrelevant.
The commonsensical approach employed here raises an interesting question: If the evidence for fine-tuning grows and no evidence whatever emerges for a multiverse, is there some point at which the weight of the evidence counts? Then what?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Michael Denton on why the Sun is remarkably fit for life
Fine-tuning: Is Earth’s magnetic core special too, compared to Mars’s?
The early universe was flat to a “suspicious” one part in a million Hence cosmic inflation theory, promoted with some pretty wild theorizing
What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter? v