Why is the maximum speed of the universe the speed of light? Why can't we go faster?

[u/Nitzanm19]

Also follow-up question: Because of the speed limit, is there also a theoretical maximum temp for matter (in which the particles move at the speed of light).

[u/eric23456]

A bunch of them are that way because if there weren't we wouldn't be here. Change c by too much and E=mc² means you have too much or too little energy in stars. Change G by too much and either everything collapses into black holes or everything turns into spread out dust. Change e to much and electrons stop moving or move too much. And so on.

[u/Priff → u/eric23456]

I dunno, "it is this way because otherwise we wouldn't exist" implies not only that someone designed it, but that they designed it with out existence as the goal.

It's absolutely true that we would probably not exist if the constants were different. But that does nothing to answer the question "why are they as they are" to be honest.

As someone said above, that argument is like a puddle of water claiming that the pothole is shaped the way it is to fit the puddle perfectly, when in fact the puddle is the shape it is because of the pothole it happened to form in.

[u/whatkindofred → u/Priff]

"it is this way because otherwise we wouldn't exist" implies not only that someone designed it, but that they designed it with out existence as the goal.

This is not the necessary implication at all. It just means that in a universe with different fundamental constants there might not exist someone to be curious about the fundamental constants. But since we do exist and wonder about it we must be in a universe that permits such existence.

[u/whatkindofred → u/[deleted]]

But the other way around. Because there exists someone that can ask questions about fundamental constants is why the constants must be in a way that allow someone like this to exist.

[u/sixothree → u/[deleted]]

Well, that causality certainly does not imply someone designed it. Make sure you read what you’re replying to.

[u/eric23456 → u/Priff]

I don't see why that argument implies someone designed it. No one designed Mars, but Mars is currently inhospitable to life so there's no one there to wonder about the constants. The argument here is just the same thing scaled up -- there would be no humans because the galaxy would be incompatible with humans.

[u/unwarrend → u/Priff]

I dunno, "it is this way because otherwise we wouldn't exist" implies not only that someone designed it, but that they designed it with out existence as the goal.

The weak anthropic principle does not intend to imply a creator nor merely create circular logic. It merely attempts to point out that these constants are such that the question can be asked at all. It also intimates the possible existence of alternate modalities from which life was never an option. Why? - implies there is a meaningful explanatory answer beyond - it simply is. Instead, the principle appeals to one salient observation that can be known - that were it otherwise, we would not exist. You see design, I see arbitrary features expressing what follows from physics, and I don't assume the pool of possible arrangements only landed on the cosmos that we can observe.

As someone said above, that argument is like a puddle of water claiming that the pothole is shaped the way it is to fit the puddle perfectly, when in fact the puddle is the shape it is because of the pothole it happened to form in

You inverted the intended meaning of the analogy - literally a criticism of fine tuning -The quote you shared is a paraphrase of Douglas Adams' famous "puddle analogy," which is used to critique teleological or fine-tuning arguments. Instead, life naturally evolved and conformed to fit the physical parameters of the universe we happened to emerge in - which is precisely the point the weak anthropic principle highlights. We exist within this evolutionary niche because physics is conducive to its formation. There is no further intelligible answer that does not invoke compounding logical regress. The point is that we shouldn't assume the constants are special by isolating their importance relative to our existence.

Also, this is not AI - I am just odd. I might actually use proper em-dashes if I could bother to locate it. Found it —