Why is the Universe as it Is?

 “Explain, as you would a child.”

--General Sarris, brutal commander of a space-battle-ship crewed by Fatu-Krey soldiers, in the movie, Galaxy Quest.

http://extraterrestrials.wikia.com/wiki/Sarris

 

= = = = =

 

The world is not flat.  It is a sphere.  Nobody knows why.

 

Oh wait, you say.  Of course we know why.   Scientists have explained it to us, as would they, to a child.  But they are wrong.  They have no idea why the world is round.  Their explanation is based on after-the-fact discovery that the world is indeed round.  Once you know that what you are explaining is certainly a fact, it is relatively simple to gather more facts, and then claim that these “more” facts explain the first fact.

 

But then, how do you explain the “more” facts, except with even more, “more” facts?

 

Now all this may seem silly, at first, but it is not.  It is simply a child-like way of explaining to adults how to answer a child’s simple questions.  Why is the sky blue?  Why is grass green?  Why do we fall down instead of up?  The more we explain, the more the child questions those explanations.

 

We never get to the final answer.

 

When scientists explain to us why the world is round, they explain to us that gravity attracts atoms to each other, and these atoms clump together into a ball shape.  The ball gets bigger and bigger, until it forms into a star or a planet or some other body.

 

Of course, all this is brilliant as far as it goes, but then, how far does it really go?  Why does gravity attract instead of repel?  Why is gravity as strong as it is, and neither stronger nor weaker?  And then there is the even bigger question, why is there gravity at all?  Why can’t there just be no gravity?

 

Why is there a universe?  Why is the universe the way it is?  Why is it exactly, precisely the way it is?  Could it have been any different?   A little?  A lot?

 

Scientists tell us that the universe is the way it is because it is governed (or shaped) by something called physical constants.  These physical constants seem to be nothing more than numbers.  There is a number for the strength of gravity.  It is written as 6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·kg^–2·m².

 

These physical constants have to be within exceedingly narrow limits in order for there to be life, civilization and technology.  Even the tiniest variation in the cosmological constant would make it impossible for atoms to exist, and therefore of course, humans.

 

There are two possible explanations for why the universe appears to be fine tuned to support us.  One explanation is Intelligent Design (or God).  Another is random chance.

 

Neither of these explanations is acceptable to physicalist scientists.  The “God” theory, or anything similar, is rejected for reasons that seem unclear to us, unless it is simply an insurmountable bias.  The random chance theory is, by its very nature, too unlikely to be plausible.

 

So then, what is left?

 

Scientists have found a way to make the random chance theory work—or, so they think.  Instead of depending on chance to make our one universe as it is, they have supposed that there are vast numbers of universes—so many, in fact, that no matter how small the chance of a universe like ours, there are so many chances that at least one of them is almost sure to happen.  Roll the dice enough times, and all combinations will eventually appear.

 

But wait.  Why does the universe have constants at all?  Why does it have twenty-seven of them, instead of three, or three thousand?  Why are the values of the constants what they are?  Could each of them be any value at all?  Is there no limit?

 

A die roll may land any number from one to six.  No, not really.  If the die is four-sided, it can never land a six.  If it has hundreds of sides, it will rarely land a six.  Dice are not randomly manufactured with random numbers of sides.  The point is, randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.  Those nonrandom parameters must be established by—designed by—by whom?  Cosmic intent?  God?

 

If scientists must improvise to explain away Fine Tuning of our one universe, then how do they explain the constants of the multi-universe which they suppose gives rise to all other universes plus ours?  The many universes hypothesis explains nothing.  It simply adds to the problem.

 

So the challenge to science is, “Explain, as you would a child.”