Super fine-tuned worlds and infinitely many universes

The typical “our Universe is fine-tuned for life” argument states that small changes in certain constants result a lifeless Universe. For example, a 2% percent stronger strong nuclear force’s consequence would be a lifeless Universe, since the formation of heavier elements never would happen under such conditions. “Although our situation is not central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent” says Anthropic Principle’s advocate Brandon Carter [In Modern Cosmology and Philosophy (ed. by John Leslie), 1998, p. 132.].
But as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out “any complex historical outcome – intelligent life on Earth, for example – represent a summation of improbabilities and becomes thereby absurdly unlikely” [ibid, p. 187]. So our special situation is not necessarily a consequence of the fine-tuning.
Similarly, Feynman joked on his luckiness, since he had observed accidentally the ARW357 license plate although the probability of it was practically zero.
And there are other problems with arguments about fine-tuning.
First of all, life is sensitive to some physical parameters. Opposite to it, computing is insensitive to the changes of almost all of them. But it doesn’t mean that our biology is extremely fine-tuned (or extremely matches) to our Universe’s conditions. Probably either a higher or a lower speed of light would not prevent the rise of life. We can play with the idea of a universe where the result of a minor modification of any parameter would result a dead world. It is not the case in our Universe, so we do not live in a so “super fine-tuned” world.
Second of all, “to be privileged” means that the given situation is not average but applying this to the biofil universe concept, there is an unspoken presupposition behind it. If we assume that there are some other universes then uniqueness has a meaning. In other words: if we hypothesize that only a finite number of other universes exist then the “privileged position” is interpretable. But if we are suppose that infinite other worlds (no matter how we define them) exist then we have to believe that infinitely many universes of them are identical with our one. What is more, in this case the number of lifeless; the biolfil and the computable universes are equal – after all, any kind of them have infinitely many identical copies. Thus the meaning of “privileged to some extent” is uninterpretable.

Fine-tuned for observers?

To be fine-tuned for life isn’t the same as to be fine-tuned for intelligence and a Universe which is fine-tuned for observers is perhaps different from them (although not necessarily). It is an interesting question since our World isn’t optimal for observations, while there are imaginable universes more favorable for it. But to live in an older Universe would be even a more serious disadvantage.
According to Avi Loeb, the viewing conditions were optimal when the Universe was a mere half billion years old and the circumstances were excellent to study the cosmic perturbations. On the other hand, Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman pointed out that in an ever-expanding universe “presently observable distant sources will disappear on a time-scale comparable to the period of stellar burning,” and we will forget the existence of our Universe within a hundred billion years. So our position in spacetime is between the two ends of the scale, but it is far from optimal. We can recall the words of King Alonso X who said that he had “some useful hints for” a Creator to produce a World.
To give a trivial example: it is impossible to decide directly whether light source is a distant and bright object or it is a weak source close to us [G. F. R. Ellis: Cosmology and Verifiability. In: Modern Cosmology and Philosophy 1998, p. 121.]. It is imaginable – theoretically at least – a physics where this kind of problem is eliminated, i.e. because every sources brightness is equal; or we could find other, more sophisticated solutions (Cepheids seems to be exceptions with the correlation between their light intensity and period).
All in all, it is a laborious and uncertain work to measure the distances in our Universe, and in the absence of real knowledge, we are willing to accept an “unproven cosmological assumption” about the homogeneity of space as an extension of the Copernican – Darwinian revolutions. Then this unproven assumption is used to interpret astronomical information (including distances) [ibid, p. 123.].
This problem is caused by the nature of our World, and is not a desirable situation for observers. But the worst scenario is a universe where one cannot able to observe anything – I strongly suspect that this world would be lifeless.
So there are two possible explanations. Perhaps we simply live in a Universe which is neither the best nor the worst from this point of view. It is imaginable as well, that a really observer-friendly Universe is impossible, and so this is the best one within the framework of our physics.

Fine-tuning and evolutionary adaptation

Advocates of Anthropic Principle usually use two kinds of arguments to support their standpoint. They argue that life’s fine-tuned nature is a result either of chance/selection effect (Weak Anthropic Principle) or the explanation is our Universe “waited" for the emergence of a thinking being in a certain sense (Strong Anthropic Principle). But it is possibly that the nature of evolutionary mechanism is the answer for the“fine-tuning”.

Complexity science and biological adaptation
According to the complexity science, a hurricane is only complex, but an anthill both complex and adaptive system, since it can change itself and its operation to respond to the change of the environment. Biological evolution is a subcategory of complex adaptive systems, since it is a system which essential feature is the flexibility to adapt itself to a wild range of options. Life adapted successfully to the deep sea and the high atmosphere on our planet, and it seems to be a plausible hypothesis that it would be able to survive even on the surface of Mars. Notice that if this reasoning is true, then it is possible that the cause of other planets’ lifelessness in the Solar is not their hostile environment. Of course, they are lethal for Earthly life, since our life is adapted to our environment (inter alia, to a dangerous oxidant named oxygen). The problem is that life didn’t begin to evolve on those heavenly bodies, so it didn’t learn to adapt to those circumstances – perhaps because of the unfavorable initial conditions. All in all, it is useful to make a distinction between an environment hostile to the life, and an environment where life cannot able to begin to evolve.

Adaptation to our Universe’s physics
A complex adaptive system possibly can adapt to different circumstances. On the other hand, since this adaptation is a result of adaptive processes, the consequence will more or less strictly matches to the conditions and because of it, it is not a surprise that life seems to be “fine-tuned” for our Universe’s certain traits. Applying the complexity science’s approach to the problem of fine-tuning we can find a different solution than Anthropic Principle.
This logic raises further questions.

• First of all, it is a question whether different forms of life exist in our Universe which are either more or less fine-tuned our Universe’s conditions. It seems to me probable – but who knows.
• According to this interpretation, the rise of life seems to be possible in other universes which are characterized by other parameters (although it is not a necessity).

Life, Universe and multiverse

According to Bernard Carr, “the Multiverse picture reduces the strong anthropic principle to an aspect of a weak one” [in Universe or Multiverse, Oxford Univ. Press, 2007, p. 4], since it explains our Universe’s biofil features by hypothesizing the existence of the multiverse. If we accept the existence of (infinitely) many other universes, it is not a surprise to find ourselves in a universe fine-tuned for life. It is a consequence of the selection effect: we can live in a universe which is suitable for life, while there many, lifeless worlds (obviously, without any intelligent observer).
This reasoning based on some unspoken assumptions.
Although Abraham Loeb argues [The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe, 2013] that there was an opportunity for the appearance of the life already 10 – 17 million years after the Big Bang, it seems to be evident that because of the physical laws, a relative huge and old universe is needed for the appearance of life. Still in Loeb’s example, the criterions of the life didn’t appear immediately after the beginning. So at least in a world governed by our laws of physics, we have to wait for some time before the first organism can be created. Obviously, it is an interesting question whether a universe with different physical laws can produce life within the first seconds. And it is a more interesting question that how long time needed for the formation of the intelligence in another Universe. Ad absurdum, one can imagine a world where the basic elements of life are cooked in the twinkle, but evolution is another story, since it based on natural selection. So a lot of steps is needed to reach a certain complexity. The appearance of the intelligence at a very, very early period of the Universe would be a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator.
Turning back to the original questions, it seems to be a well-founded argument that there are some criterion of the emergence of life and intelligence. It isn’t possible them to come into being without some physical conditions.
It is imaginable that to the emergence of a biofil universe many other universes’ existence needed. After all, life requires a relative long past with relative huge spatial extension, and ad analogiam, it cannot be excluded that a universe fine tuned for life requires the existence of other universes.
Obviously, it seems to be a not too serious concept. But Carr’s concept is based exactly on this, since he leads back the existence of our biofil environment to the existence of other universes. According to him, our Universe was chosen by chance, but I can imagine that there is a connection between our Universe and the others, and this connection isn’t based on a kind of chance, but on some kind of physical laws.
What is more, arguing that only a few (or only one) habitable universe exists, Carr suggest that life is not a general phenomenon, but an exception. But at least theoretically it is imaginable that life is necessarily associated with the presence of the matter (although not every, but) in several universes.
Or, ad absurdum, we can play with the idea of an “Ultimate Anthropic Principle” which prohibits the born of any lifeless universe. Who knows – we have only one example for a biofil world, and it isn’t enough for generalization.