[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: maxresdefault.jpg (113 KB, 1280x720)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
Nobody here can refute the fine tuned hypothesis.
>>
>>14732617
anthropic principle. of course there can be many universes that are empty or boring or too chaotic, but the special few that happen to evolve galactic structures and solar systems with habitable planetary systems and advanced life will obviously look special because unless they were special nobody would evolve in them to appreciate their specialness
>>
>>14732617
Fine tuning is derived from classical assumptions, but our universe is nonclassical, so fine tuning has unsound justification. Deboonked.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.