Genady

The value calculated from infinity is as absolute as values calculated from any other choice of distance. You can choose the energy being 0 at some finite distance L. Then in 3D, the general equation for absolute value for any distance is GMm(1/L-1/d). In 2D, it would be GMm*ln(d/L). They all are absolute values. You can choose L to be 1 km, 1 parsec, diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, radius of the observable universe, whatever. It doesn't matter because in all physical calculations the constant L will cancel out. The difference between the formulas for 3D and for 2D is that the former allows you to choose L being infinity and to get a nicer formula without L to start with, since it will cancel anyway, -GMm/d, while in 2D you can't do this, although it will cancel there as well.

You don't have to integrate to infinity. You can choose anything convenient for your 0 energy and calculate from it. The only meaningful value (in Newtonian world) is energy difference, not its absolute value.

A few minutes after this^^^ topic has appeared on my screen an ad showed up, "¿Jesús resucitó de la muerte? Jesús enseñó que la vida no termina después de la muerte física." Coincidence? God? AI?

Also e.g. ants workers / soldiers die protecting the Queen.

Why then wouldn't you write to these scientists and ask them directly for the missing explanations? BTW, here is what Neil deGrasse Tyson had to say about how fine the universe is tuned for life. Spoiler: "stupid design."

Maybe you shouldn't look into youtube videos as representation of scientific thinking?

This picture could be an illustration in my other thread, about the right handed helices of wire black corals. But the lionfish sitting on the helix' axis at 140', 43 m has requested to be here:

I know, let's use German, erstellen. Sounds just like eigen and gedanken.

You mean, we shouldn't say that particles are created? shouldn't call 'a+' a creation operator?

I should've put the last statement in that post in parentheses, like this: (The inflation model solves this one.) I wanted to bring another example of a fine-tuning problem in physics. Inflation is interesting in this respect as a way of eliminating a need of fine-tuning dynamically, in principle. One of possible ways.

I couldn't say it better. +1 Another fine-tuning problem, in cosmology, is related to the flatness problem, i.e. the degree of the current flatness of the universe requires incredible closeness of the initial energy density to a critical value at the start of the universe expansion. The inflation model solves this one.

I think that most physicists think, this IS a valid option. Many think that one day we'll be able to derive Lambda and other numbers which today we need to put in "by hand", from some first principles. So, they are what they are because they cannot be anything else, any other numbers will lead to some inconsistencies.

That's right. Why do you expect "there being a problem?"

You said some time back that "it has to do with the universe existing the way that it does is too improbable". I think that I didn't make it clear then, so I do now: I don't think that it has to do with the universe being improbable, but rather with it having improbable value of some parameter, e.g. Lambda. I said then that all universes have the same probability to exist, but the values of Lambda don't have the same probability. That's why Lambda is in the picture. I do not compare probabilities of different universes. They are equal. I compare probabilities of having various Lambdas. These are not equal.

LOL

I think we are saying the same thing, don't we?

Again, it is essentially the same solution, i.e. there are multitude of possibilities and the one you are in just one of them that happened to fit you. Multitude of sperm, multitude of environments on Earth, multitude of planets, multitude of universes. The model is the same: no fine tuning is required if there are many possibilities and some of them just happened to fit your existence.

This is all correct. However, did you notice that the picture of the "fine tuned" Sahara in the example above is essentially the same as the multiverse one, i.e. there are many different environments with various conditions in them and the bacteria exist where and when the conditions are right for them? (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a proponent of the multiverse model, just an objective - to the best of my abilities - observer.)

In this picture, a lionfish and a sea urchin share a rock for food and shelter:

The Lambda was what led to the comparison. It was not chosen for comparison. What is your reason for comparison?

Sorry, I'm missing something in your argument. I didn't chose anything.

Discovery of such organism would simply move LUCA back in time, to a common ancestor of the 'current LUCA' and this organism.

I don't understand this. The question is not about "something", but specifically about our value of Lambda. Relatively small change in this value of Lambda would lead to a universe without planets, stars, galaxies, almost all chemical elements, etc, i.e. without life.

If you imagine a probability distribution of different values of Lambda in various universes, then supposedly there are more universes with Lambda many orders of magnitude larger than what we got here. Or, there are more possible initial conditions that lead to the larger Lambda than the ones that lead to such a small Lambda. Each specific universe has the same probability to exist, but by picking a universe at random you get very small probability that it will have our value of Lambda. Vast majority of them will have a much larger value.

I don't see, why it is not. I think so, too. And as I understand, Alan - and many other physicists - think so as well: it just happened so that this universe, either alone or one of many, can and does have life in it. I don't know where the impression of this being an issue came from. I mean, where in the science of physics. Philosophy is a different story, but that would be a different forum.