On 18 January 2014 19:02, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/17/2014 8:17 PM, LizR wrote:
> OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on
> this, plus no doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.
> So we still have the properties of water and carbon and "god knows what
> else". Given the number of elements that don't assemble into chain
> molecules, or liquids that don't float when they solidify .... hm .... let
> me know if we ever reach the point where incredibleness can legitimately be
> invoked, will you?
> The cosmological constant seemed to be incredibly fine-tuned as a
> near-zero remnant of the quantum-vacuum energy density. But the
> holographic principle may have solved that.
> Wasn't inflation supposed to fix a similar problem?
I was thinking more of the properties of matter which allow stars and
planets and life to exist than the cosmological constant, although that may
be very fine tuned too. I must admit that the homogeneity and isotropy of
the universe look so smooth above some scale (I think it's around a few 100
million light years) that there is probably something fairly fundamental
smoothing it off. Wouldn't we otherwise expect the universe to be
drastically non-uniform with us just fortunate enough to be in a "pocket of
smoothness" ? (Or maybe it's easier for whatever-it-is to operate on the
whole universe, giving us an "unlikely" flat one...???)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.