Thoughts: This is a bit too much focussed on what "small" means regarding changes. We might think that a 0.00001 change is small, but… The universe is in a sense scale-less, so you could consider even 0.0000000001 to be a huge change.
In other words: I don't buy the [[fine-tuning hypothesis]] because our concept of what fine-tuning is, might as well be coarse tuning. And it is, by our own definition; if tuning a variable results in huge changes (going from a universe with life, to one where not even atoms could exist), the changes are not so fine now, are they?
The definition hinges on semantics and our perspective on orders of magnitude. While I would like to move on from the fascination with chaos theory and the butterfly effect and integrate the fact that seemingly small causes have apparently outsized effects. There is a de-coupling of cause and effect, or a scale-invariant correlation.
Then there is me throwing big-ish words around in semi-meaningful sentences.
Also, no matter how unlikely, no matter how improbable; this is the universe we've got. It's here. It's real.
A universe as stable as ours is, might be, almost inevitable; if countless universes come into and go out of existence, at some point it is not impossible that one like ours came to be, and continued to be.
This is a natural consequence of the [[../Notes/Cosmic Natural Selection]] idea of [[Lee Smolin]]. See also:: [[Smolin vs Susskind - The Anthropic Principle]]
The fine-tuning hypothesis is almost as preposterous to me as a [[Boltzmann brain]]
via:: [[fine-tuning hypothesis]] related:: [[anthropic principle]] topic:: [[Cosmology]] topic:: [[life in the universe]]