3 ms·
The anthropic principle, and this type of stochastic lottery argument, are terribly unsatisfying. They may be right, but then again, they may not. They're emi
by arbitrage 14y ago
The anthropic principle, and this type of stochastic lottery argument, are terribly unsatisfying. They may be right, but then again, they may not. They're eminently unfalsifiable, and shouldn't be given any more credence than a typical appeal to divinity.
- Nursie 14y agoI vehemently disagree with it being equivalent to an appeal to divinity. I haven't anywhere said 'this is what happened'. If you want to say it's equivalent to an answer of 'I don't know', then that's fine.
- arbitrage 14y agoI'm sure you didn't, but either way the outcome is the same. You throw your hands up in the air and walk away, seemingly content to look no further. The anthropic principle and its ilk are a dead end for investigation, and ultimately useless to invoke.
- Nursie 14y agoWho said I was content not to look further? Does "this is what I guess, as far as I know" imply I don't wish to know any more?
- svachalek 14y agoThe question is "why didn't some other outcome have the same likelihood?" and the answer was, perhaps it did. We don't know what the most likely outcome of the extinction was, only which one occurred.