There is a scientific description for that. It's called Natural Selection. Formation of the Universe by a process of Evolution through Natural Selection. In that way, Singularities which do not produce constants enabling a Universe to form, fail to produce one. Those that do, succeed. Darwin does the tuning.
C'mon Shoe, why would you say something so silly? Life could have evolved (or created by your theory) on a planet with no carbon, no heavy elements, and a temp of 400 degrees -- it just wouldn't have been *this life*. JB
Or.. it can be called having to make remarkably minor adjustments to an astoundingly improbable situation. _____ If you were playing poker and a computerized device ostensibly programmed to deal randomly dealt a royal flush a hundred times in a row to the same player would you find it believable that the dealing was truly random? If we assume that blind chance is the ultimate agent for the setting of the properties of a universe we can say that blind chance fine tuned the universe such that life would occur. Blind chance then, brought into reality ( Now ) a probability so remote that we have to wonder if blind chance is believable as the agent of the design of the Universe. ...unless, perhaps, we accept your Eternal Universe - but if we do how do we explain Now in the context of Eternity? Since Eternity is temporal boundlessness how can there be specific locations in it and a location in it called Now? Given that position is relative, why would Now occur where it does rather than in any of an infinite number of alternative time locations? If Now does have a specific location then Eternity is structured. Is there not a contradiction in a structured Eternity since any structure has limits?
What you are describing has nothing to do with the cosmological constant. The constant was originally proposed by Einstein to balance his equations by compensating for the matter and energy in the universe which had not yet been discovered. Later, quantum theorists calculated the constant to be a very large number, but the empirical measurements didn't reflect the calculations. Finally, physicist Steven Weinberg decided to try to calculate the constant by reverse engineering. He created a gedanken (mind experiment) by which he proposed that the constant needed to be a number which would permit the visible universe to take the form in which it appears. When the instrumentation became available to actually measure the constant (aka vacuum energy of space), it turned out that Weinberg's measurement was correct (actually, off by one decimal point, but close enough, considering Weinberg had no means of empirically verifying the number). The question which remains is where is the matter and/or energy necessary to cancel out the quantum calculations, so as to cause the mathematics to accurately reflect what we observe. That question remains unanswered to date. So, what we have is a lot of different equations which require a cosmological constant and we have yet to observe the physical matter and/or energy required to tie everything up into a neatly explainable package. Weinberg's mind experiment was called the anthropic principle, i.e., that the cosmological constant must be a certain number, because that's what is necessary for the universe to be as it is, and ultimately to permit life to exist on Earth. The fact that the constant is very small doesn't suggest that the universe is fine tuned, any more than were the constant very big. The cosmological constant is just a number representing the amount of vacuum energy measured in empty space. You may wish to view the constant is fine tuned by an outside entity, because that gives you reason to believe in one. But, suppose the constant were a different number, and the amount of matter and/or energy also a different amount. Things would still be in balance and we would still have life on Earth. The point is that things are the way they are because they are, not because someone or something made them that way. Unless you want to believe the latter -- in which case, you're certainly entitled. However, the science does not support the existence of a diety, and the cosmological constant is not some incredibly lucky coincidence. It's just a number, like so many others which measure things in the universe (plank constant, etc.).
"However, the science does not support the existence of a diety, and the cosmological constant is not some incredibly lucky coincidence." The science doesn't have a position of "non support" for it either...science has no opinion actually, though scientist generally do. Few around here seem to understand the difference between science and the opinions of scientists. So you believe that it is not an incredible lucky coincidence? Too funny...
In order for the cosmological constant to be a "lucky coincidence" we must be able to calculate the probability of it being what it is. In order to make that calculation we must have a set of possible universes. By varying the amounts of matter and/or energy in each possible universe, each universe could have a different cosmological constant and yet still support our form life on Earth. Thus, as the number of cosmological constants are dependent upon the mix of matter and energy, which could take any of an infinite number of possible configurations, thus the possible cosmological constants which could support life on Earth are also infinite. This renders the concept of "lucky coincidence" meaningless. We are here because we are here -- and the cosmological constant is what it is. If you wish to infer some greater purpose, be my guest -- but your inference is not supported by the measurements. They are only what they are -- nothing more nor less.
If trillions or more universes were dealt you could point to our universe and say that universe proves nothing; it was bound to be dealt. Given infinite universes, one universe being able to support life might be expected. (this does not rule out design- but it would rule out arguing for design by virtue of the existence of a life sustaining universe.) However, if this is the only universe, some major scientists say it is absurd to say our universe formed the way it did by chance. It must have been intended or designed. Perhaps we don't have proof but we do have evidence. What is ironic is that the argument for multiple universes is now based on faith. It is not based on empiricism. The very people who argued that the design argument is not scientific (because you can't test it or verify it) are now making an appeal to unseen and untested multiple universes. The people arguing for design can say do the math. It is a very delicious irony. You just have to marvel at the Creator's sense of design and humor. Next...
OPINION ALERT!!!! >However, if this is the only universe, some major >scientists say it is absurd to say our universe formed >the way it did by chance. JB
cantorian space-time, p-adic inflation, p-adic string theory, adelic analysis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Quantized_space-time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._S._El_Naschie http://newphysicsandthemind.net/8.html http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/0387332855/ref=sib_rdr_fc?ie=UTF8&p=S001&j=0#reader-page http://www.math.ucla.edu/~vsv/ has god made the world p-adic?