A few more numbers and comments excerpted from Gerald Schroeders website.
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
With increased understanding of nature comes increased control of nature. Technology advances exponentially. See The Law of Accelerating Returns
How much technology advancement is required to create a galaxy or universe? When will we have that technology? Will we seed the new galaxy or universe so it evolves conscious beings or will that be set with the initial conditions for creating the galaxy or universe? How much sooner before that will we have cured human death and saved a replica of each persons conscious mind in case of accidental death so that a new body can house it? Current estimates from research and development in several fields concerning human longevity put it at 2040 to 2100. Will Earthlings be the first to create universes? Can't have too big a customer base to do business with. ;-)
Come to think of it, if there are other immortal conscious beings scattered throughout the Universe they probably have already assured that the implosion half-cycle of the Universe will never occur. Perhaps maintaining the Universe in a state of oscillation.
Matter and energy are but two of three macro components of existence. The third and controlling component is consciousness.
Around about that time we'll say: "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
Achieving much more than any imagined God, immortal Earthlings become God-men and God-woman.
That was really goofy and pointless. Now see my posts #219 for why, and reread my post #104 again until you understand it well enough to post a reply to it that actually addresses what I wrote.
Meanwhile, in your own reply:
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
Exactly -- and yet some of them are foolish enough to try to speculate about how *other* universes based on entirely different principles might behave, in all their myriad details, and then draw confident conclusions from their mental masturbation about what the laws of physics would end up like under different conditions, *and* whether those laws would allow any kind of life to exist. Excuse me while I bust a gut laughing.