Suppose I roll a dice and get a five, nobody would ask how and why I got a five rather than a four, simply because “that’s just the way it is.” Everybody would be contented with the value I obtained and no further question or investigation is needed.
Now, consider this second case, suppose I toss a handful of scrabble letters on the floor and the letters form a sequence that read, “To be and not to be, that is the question.” This time, everyone would question how the scrabble letters formed a sequence that is also a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet? With trillions of possible sequences, it is very unlikely for the scrabble letters to form this precise sequence. Gibberish sequences are more likely to be formed rather than this precise sequence, and if a gibberish sequence was formed, nobody would question this outcome. The difference between these two anecdotes is that the dice anecdote has no meaning, whereas the scrabble letters sequence has meaning, and therefore, value. This demonstrates that some things need no explanation, and some things need explanations.
Our universe is a meaningful and valuable thing because we live here, and indeed, we have been questioning and studying it. As a result, we have fundamentals and laws that govern the nature of our universe, such as the cosmological constants that have precise values to permit life. If somehow these constants change or have different values, our universe would no longer be hospitable to life. Out of the infinite possibility of values for the cosmological constants, our universe happens to have all the precise and perfect constants that permit life. Like the scrabble letters anecdote, this is rather strange; as if someone had adjusted the constants because it is very unlikely for the constant to have perfect and precise values at random chance.
Let’s take the universal gravitational constant for example; our universe’s gravitational constant value is 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2. If this gravitational constant was 0.5 percent weaker, after the Big Bang, the matter would have remained evenly distributed across the universe—it would not have coalesced into galaxies, stars, planets and so on. Consequently, a universe that is hospitable to life would never exist. On the other hand, if the gravitational constant were 0.5 percent stronger, the Big Bang would be followed by a big crunch, where the matter would be very dense and close together. As a result, the universe would not expand and a life-permitting universe would never exist. This is the case for all the cosmological constants—they randomly appear to be “finely-tuned” for life.
Nonetheless, when these mysterious cosmological constants are questioned, one could counter-argue by saying, it is not surprising that our universe is hospitable to life because if it was not hospitable, we wouldn’t be here to observe the cosmological constants. Therefore, the constants are not questionable. In illustrating this response, here’s an analogy from an MIT Philosopher, Roger White:
You are standing before a firing squad with fifty rifles aimed in your direction. To your astonishment as the guns blast each bullet flies closely by you leaving you unharmed. Why did all the bullets miss? Was it just an accident? Surely this cries out for explanation if anything does. It cannot help to be told, ‘Well if they hadn’t all missed you wouldn’t be alive to see it.
It is true that if you were being shot, you would not be able to observe how the bullets managed to miss you. Similarly, if the cosmological constants were not being finely tuned in the first place, we would not be able to observe them now. However, claiming this does not remove the mystery of how and why the cosmological constants have their specific, life-permitting values. You may say, “That’s just the way it is,” and accept the finely tuned cosmological constants as facts that have allowed our planet to have vast panoply of living creatures, ignore the mystery, and be satisfied. Or you can consider other ways of comprehending the cosmological mystery, such as the traditional theism approach, which claims that a divine agent—God—is involved in the origin of the universe. Accordingly, this divine agent must have been the one who tuned the cosmological constants to their precise and perfect values to create a life-permitting universe.
Lock, stock, and barrel, there are many possible resolutions to this cosmological mystery, while some resolutions might sound more valid than the others, it doesn’t mean that they are the absolute resolutions. Also, it doesn’t mean that the less-valid resolutions are not worthy to be explored and understood. Although this article might lean towards the traditional theism, it does not prove the existence of God, nor it claims that Science is the absolute knowledge that resolves life and cosmological mysteries. The argument merely connects certain observed facts to the traditional theism. Therefore, the mystery remains, and uncertainty is perpetuated, which is a good thing, because despite the uncomfortable and vulnerable state of uncertainty, with uncertainty comes infinite possibilities, and this allows learning through wonder, critical thinking, discovery, and creativity. Now, in the spirit of learning, whether to question or not to question—that is the question.