I don't care if we use appearance or our universe is... but... you all have to understand fine tuning has become a term in the scientific lexicon. Pretty much by defintion our universe is fine tuned.
However, if you are talking to layman and speaking of an explanation you say our universe appears extremely fine tuned.
The science says we are fine tuned...
I have presented this dozens of times now...
This is science not stu's bullshit...
1. We only have one universe that we know about.
Our standard model of physics is extremely fine tuned. That is not an appearance of fine tuning.. .its 20 or more very finely tuned constants that have been experimentally confirmed by CERN. The extremely fine tuned constants were used to predict the appearance of a higgs boson. The CERN LHC created experimental proof of the extreme fine tuning when the standard model of physics was used to predict where the higgs boson could be located. There were 20 or more constants tuned to 30 decimal places and the one is tuned to 100 decimal places.
2. You also just saw the penrose video. He is one of the smartest men on the planet when it comes to this stuff. He explained absolutely stunning fine tuning a few pages back.
3. I have presented other physicists like steven weinberg saying there is no doubt our universe is extremely fine tuned for life.
4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Physicist
Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'
anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because
biogenesis occurs frequently".
[17] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have been proposed, such as the
anthropic principle along with
multiple universes.
George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the
multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."
[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
5.
In
theoretical physics,
fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called
naturalness.
[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the
anthropic principle.
The idea that Naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by
Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk 'Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?', a lecture from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long time ago.
The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is the
cosmological constant so small?); the
hierarchy problem; the
strong CP problem, and others.
An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological
flatness problem, which is solved if
inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree.
