The circle is a nice example where there is a simple analytical relationship between the radius and the circumference (1:2pi). Other basic shapes, like the ellipse, have no such simple relationship, even in pure maths. And when performing the experiment you mentioned, the strings are very unlikely to be in 1:2pi ratio, they will be within some range of that ratio.
The universe has some set of independent initial parameters. Whether they are the ones we know or there are some other, more fundamental ones, ultimately some parameters are there.
Even with a single fundamental parameter, that parameter will have some range within which variations in value don't affect the universe at all (like the 1/g64 example), and some range where changes in them would lead to a very different universe, potentially one that can't sustain life.
This idea of "probability" of the observed values of these parameters is then meaningless. What is the probability distribution of the "universes"? To say that the "fine tuned" universe is "unlikely" you have to posit a probability distribution, but there is no empirical data to then verify if this distribution is correct, and, crucially, there can never be such empirical data.
You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional.
> You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional.
We do ask ourselves that the number of degrees of freedom is tied to the laws of physics, so it’s now really a question of why X but what are the physical laws that give us X.
And if we continue with the circle and parabola analogy then what we are tying to figure out is whether our universe is a circle or a parabola.. that’s a pretty worthy question to ask in my book.
We are thing to answer if the the values are actually random and thus have to be fine tuned to produce the universe we live in today or are they not random and if such what is the relationship governing them that makes them take the values they have.
The universe has some set of independent initial parameters. Whether they are the ones we know or there are some other, more fundamental ones, ultimately some parameters are there.
Even with a single fundamental parameter, that parameter will have some range within which variations in value don't affect the universe at all (like the 1/g64 example), and some range where changes in them would lead to a very different universe, potentially one that can't sustain life.
This idea of "probability" of the observed values of these parameters is then meaningless. What is the probability distribution of the "universes"? To say that the "fine tuned" universe is "unlikely" you have to posit a probability distribution, but there is no empirical data to then verify if this distribution is correct, and, crucially, there can never be such empirical data.
You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional.