Steven Hawking strikes again

[highsea]

Well, no, "we" can't. You may be able to, I am not.



...


Yes, the explanation effectively being that the question of the odds of our existence is meaningless, since we clearly exist.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, unless you are using the fact of our existence as evidence of a god?

Otherwise the odds are something greater than zero. I would argue that they are 100%.

As I said- Anthropic principle is not an explanation of existence (or odds), it's an explanation of a logical fallacy that the rules governing our universe require supernatural intervention.

You can take any universal constant and change it- life as we know it disappears. But who is to say that life doesn't evolve anyway under the new rules?

[highsea]

...Already answered, or at least an attempt was made, in #114. But to expand, slightly- there is of course no reason to suppose that any given universe has similar laws to ours. We're not talking about any given universe, however. We're talking about all of 'em. And if you have enough, you'll get every iteration you want.

You have it backwards in #114. The universe isn't tuned to produce us, we evolved in tune with the universe.

You don't need every iteration, you only need one.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Gah. Got about halfway through a response before I realized how long it would likely take to make it quality, and how foolish I would be to take that time when I need to study for biochem and genetics. Tomorrow, maybe, or tonight if I'm incredibly productive (The odds of which I am quite willing to estimate to be lower than the odds of life emerging spontaneously in this, or any universe...).

[highsea]

Study away, AG!