The fine-tuning argument is one of the most widely used arguments for a creative intelligence behind the universe. The fine-structure constant, the gravitational constant, the strength ratios of the fundamental forces — all appear to be calibrated with extreme precision for stable atoms, chemistry and life to be possible. Change one constant slightly, and the universe collapses or explodes or remains empty and cold. The probability of this being coincidental is claimed to be astronomically small.

In the EC/HE theory the argument falls away — not because it is answered, but because the premise is wrong.

The constants are not arbitrary values that happened to work out. They are consequences of underlying stability conditions in the relational emergence structure. A universe manifested through the Experience Circle must necessarily be internally congruent — the relational structures that are stabilised must cohere as a whole. The constants are not fine-tuned for life. They are geometric necessities that follow from stable manifestation being possible at all. The Horizon Equation is the mathematical expression of precisely this.

The question “why are the constants such that life is possible?” rests on a mistaken ontology. It presupposes that the constants could have been otherwise — that they are free parameters drawn from a hat. In the EC/HE theory they are not free. They are necessary. The universe is not adapted for us. It could not have been otherwise and simultaneously been a stable manifest universe.

Other stable relational structures in KNOWING can in principle give rise to other forms of manifest experience — other “universes” with other stability conditions and other constants. But within each such structure the constants will be equally necessary. Fine-tuning presupposes a tuner. There is none.

« Previous Next »