Lawrence Krauss does not explain quantum mechanics. We understand quantum mechanics better now such as quarks, pentaquarks and more extremely tiny particles.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what he said in the video I posted, and even less to do with your assertion that he believes the Universe came from a literal "nothing".
Cosmic fine tuning is evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. If altered even by the tiniest amount, life would not be able to exist. Its specificity could not have happened by chance. There are many examples of things so finely tuned, so it is considered a theory.
I have already explained why the fine tuning argument fails, but it appears you're ignoring any instance in which I destroy your arguments. So, I'm going to make this very simple and use Douglas Adam's analogy.
Imagine a puddle forming on the ground. In the morning, the puddle wakes up, and sees the world in which it exists. In particular, it looks at the small hole in the ground that holds it, and notes how the precise shape of the hole seems to fit the exact volume of water that he is made from, and concludes that this hole - and, in fact, this entire world, must have been specifically designed to have him in it. After-all, how could it ever be possible that, of all the places on earth, of all of the holes in the ground, that this specific body of water would happen to land in this specific place? It's so astronomically improbable that the only conclusion the puddle can reach is that this was all somehow intended, and that the world was specifically tailored for his existence. The puddle continues to believe this, even as the sun comes out and his body begins to shrink until their is nothing left of it.
Your logic is identical to the puddle. You are looking only at the situation that currently exists and saying "this specific set of circumstances, and this particular result of those circumstances, seem so specific that the given result must have been the intended one". This is really no different to saying "if things were different, then things would be different". What's more, for the argument to be successful, you first have to demonstrate how the specific set of circumstances under which life arose are
the only set of circumstances under which life can arise in any form. Since we have no other examples of life, you cannot possibly assert that this is the case. If life arose on Mars, instead of on earth, you would still be making the exact same claim. If life had arose on a meteor instead of on earth, you would still be making the exact same claim. If life existed solely on the head of a pin, you would still be making the exact same claim. All we are currently aware of are the specific conditions under which life arose
in our case, and we cannot make any assessment of how life may arise in similar, or even dissimilar, cases.
What's more, let's use the exact same argument and apply it to something else. Let's try applying it to my bedside table. In order for my bedside table to exist, the Universe must be VERY finely tuned. First, life needs to exist. Secondly, that life needs to develop some form of sentience and intelligence. Thirdly, that life needs to develop the ability to use tools and machines. Fourthly, that life needs to find the
specific tree and carve out the
specific shape of wood that my bedside cabinet is made from (remember, we're not talking about ANY bedside cabinet, we are talking specifically MY bedside cabinet, and therefore all the specific components that IT is made from, and not other, similar cabinets). So, using this logic, we can conclude that the Universe wasn't fine-tuned for life, but was in fact fine-tuned for my bedside cabinet, since the exact circumstances under which my bedside cabinet came into existence as far less likely to occur than the existence of life itself. The Universe surely only exists so that my bedside cabinet could exist.
Do you see the problem yet?
