Paperback ( )

This is a frankly stupid argument and it surprises me that in the course of more than 25 years, otherwise highly intelligent people (scientists, I mean, superstitionists, not so much) still bother to engage in it.

So far as the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for our kind of life is concerned:

1. It does not matter whether there is an infinity of parallel universes; or 24; or three; or just this one.

2. It does not matter whether there have been millions of earlier Big Bangs, or just 42; or five; or just this one.

3. It does not matter what are the odds of these constants being as they are, whether it's one in 10 or one in a googolplex. We don't actually know what the probabilities are because we don't know why they are—we're still flummoxed by the colossal disagreement between vacuum energy density (cosmological constant) and what quantum field theory suggests it ought to be: a discrepancy that may be as large as 10¹²° (depending on Planck energy and some other stuff)

4. What matters is the we can be here to observe only this universe and only because the various physical constants make it possible for us to be here. We could not be observing any universe in which those constants were significantly different. There are no humans elsewhere in the realm of all universes saying "Why aren't these physical constants different?"—because they could never have been born.

It is that simple. It does not help to attach polysyllabic terms to what I've just said (like 'anthropocentrism') because that doesn't add information or meaning, any more than declaring that your chosen god(s) dialled in a convenient value of Λ. This 'debate' is equivalent to a curious goldfish saying "Wow, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that we—who need water to live in—find ourselves in this pond?"

The fine-tuning problem is an interesting physics problem, no doubt meaning we don't understand something on the fundamental level. But it is very much overplayed in the theological arena. Why (some) physicists still harp on about it on debate platforms involving the religiously minded is a mystery.

Another overplayed paradox: the Fermi Paradox.

Or the intelligent puddle which marvels at the fact that its perimeter fits it so precisely that it must have been made specially for it. That would answer the meta-question: 'Why do humans ask why the universe is like it is?', it doesn't answer the question: 'Why is the universe like it is?' What 'matters' is entirely subjective to each individual.. but do not let that stop you attempting to rationalise all and sundry.. doing do might give a feeling of accomplishment.. which is, in itself, 'subjective'..

The probability of the universe being as it is is 1. Unlikely as it appears, conditions where life developed on Earth and the evolutionary path of self replicating organism to intelligent beings capable of theorising and philosophising has been miraculous, a journey against all odds where catastrophes, geological action, population pressures, diseases amongst other things hindered but also ensured the rise of mammalian life and the existence of sapiens. It's maybe not as chancey as the physics of the universe but it's chancey enough and has been accomplished without any Creator having been involved or if otherwise having the courtesy to leave evidence of such input.

The fine-tuning argument can never go anywhere, no matter how refined it gets, for one very simple reason: if God revealed himself to us, directly or indirectly, we would have no way of verifying if it was actually God, because we have no experience of God and nothing to compare it to. If he appeared in the heavens and spoke to us or left his signature on the corner of the cosmos, it would have no more plausibility than the face of Christ appearing on a slice of toast in Bognor Regis.

We will never know the fundamental origins of the universe either way. Or, if possible, ask your mother; she puts everything away. Perhaps sounding a bit cunk, but asking sincerely, where are all the multiverses exactly? ( )

I am done with this. It probably belongs on a shelf for books I didn't finish, because I just could not stand to read any more. The first chapter was interesting to me, and if that had been the whole book, I could have given it 4 stars. But it wasn't.

I just never felt that the author was communicating with me. He kept not answering my questions and answering questions I didn't ask and didn't care about.

The last straw for me was his claim that (4 pi/3) was close to 1. OK, on one hand, it's a reasonable thing, if you're dealing with numbers that include large (positive or negative) powers of ten. For those magnitudes, I guess that a multiple of something around 4 isn't hugely different from one. But it that's the meaning you want to use for "close to 1" please don't expect me to be amazed that it's so close, and that people (supposedly scientists) use this to argue that the value might actually BE 1.

Also, the writing struck me as turgid, and the formulas were never explained in any detail, just presented as sort of a fait accompli.


Previous comments on the book.
This book is not really what I expected. The first two chapters were OK, if sometimes slow going. But when I got to chapter three, I had to say this:

This book reminds me of Lord Dorwin, in the novel Foundation. Asimov used him to illustrate the decadence of the dying interstellar empire. Lord Dorwin took snuff. When speaking (unless he was very excited) he dropped the letter "r". He was an expert on the Origin Question, the one dealing with what star/planet was the original home of mankind. I'll quote part of a paragraph from his discourse on the subject:
"I've got the wuhks of all the all the old mastahs, the gweat ahcheologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah, balance the disagweements, analyze the conflicting statements, decide which is pwobably cowwect, and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method."

I skipped Chapter 4. ( )

This is an entertaining book on the philosophical implications of cosmology, but it seems to be primarily aimed for physicists rather than the general public. However, the anthropic principle itself is a fascinating argument and you will not find a better presentation of it anywhere else, so I do recommend this book even to non-physicists who are not daunted by mathematical formalism. The calculation of size limits for living beings was another thing that particularly stuck to my mind from this book. If you don't read this book all the way through you should at least read the very end which is quite amusing.

WILL the Universe end in the heat death of the Universe, or does the 2nd law of thermodynamics fail below the atomic level?