The Precision of the Universe

I ran into this beautiful dialogue between actors Iain Armitage (Sheldon) and Zoe Perry (Mary) from Young Sheldon:

• Sheldon: Did you know that if gravity were slightly more powerful, the universe would collapse into a ball?
• Mary: I did not.
• Sheldon: Also, if gravity were slightly less powerful, the universe would fly apart, and there would be no stars or planets.
• Mary: Where you going with this, Sheldon?
• Sheldon: It's just that gravity is precisely as strong as it needs to be. And if the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn't one percent, life wouldn't exist. What are the odds that would happen all by itself?
• Mary: Why are you trying to convince me to believe in God? You don't believe in God.
• Sheldon: I don't, but the precision of the universe at least makes it logical to conclude there's a creator.

I have not fact-checked the dialogue, but the conversation is interesting. "The precision of the universe at least makes it logical to conclude there's a creator."

Now you can agree with the "why" behind gravity being as strong as it needs to be. But that assumes that this is the first version is the universe?

What if this is the universe's 10th, 100th, or 1,000th version? What if there is no "Why" behind the creation of the universe? What if there is only a "How?"

The author, Lawrence M. Krauss, writes, "Whenever one asks "Why?" in science, one actually means "How?," Why? is not really a sensible question in science because it usually implies purpose."

I am less inclined to speak of "Why?" and more willing to talk about "How?"

Why? Because when you default your discourse to "Why?" you are intellectually lazy. You are giving into a story that is based on your limited understanding.

Instead, why not pursue your intellectual curiosities? Pursue the "How."