Here, let me save you some time: the paper that this article is about is a 79-page-long pseudo-scientific apologia for the fine-tuning argument [1], with the un

Here, let me save you some time: the paper that this article is about is a 79-page-long pseudo-scientific apologia for the fine-tuning argument [1], with the universe playing the role of God, but with the persona of a toddler playing around with a Lego set until it gets an arrangement of bricks that produces us because reasons. It's lipstick on a pig. Highly-credentialed lipstick, but still lipstick. Any serious defense of this idea needs to address one very basic question: what does this theory explain that the anthropic principle does not? On this question the paper is silent. There is one reference to the anthropic principle, and that is just to present the fine-tuning "problem". The paper says nothing else about it. So the entire thing is one giant exercise in question-begging [2]. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/ [2] https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit...