Life, 140 factors; intelligent life: 402 factors
Or is it just not giving some people the answers they want?
If one is just looking for something to be snarky about, it is best not to engage with any serious issues. In that case, puffing popular Darwinism at every opportunity is the best choice available. There’s sure no Nobel for that.
Rob Sheldon: Despite McMaster U. thinking this odd, and believing (hoping?) for a failure of the Standard Model, I see this as a necessary means of storing the information in the hot Big Bang, and demonstrating the ultimate fine-tuning of the cosmos.
Ethan Siegel: Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria…
Hugh Ross: The discovery of life in another planetary system would indicate another instance of such divine intervention, meaning our universe would contain not just one origin-of-life miracle, but two.
Listening to Bill Nye scream “I suck,” one can’t help thinking that believing that we live in a meaningless universe may be a mental health hazard.
From what these researchers report, yes, one can definitely apply the principle. But then one must accept that biology shows evidence of design. “Just right” is rarely an accident.
Researchers: The habitable zone for complex life around many stars could be much smaller than previously thought once the concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide on planets is considered.
For example, how can we “partition an infinite multiverse so to arrive at the finite probabilities we observe and require (e.g. for quantum mechanics) because in an infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times?”
Robin Collins and Josh Rasmussen answer the strongest objections
Not Pluto (it was downgraded in 2006). What do you want to bet that the Big Ninth will turn out to be an instance of fine-tuning?
A good deal of effort goes into explaining away the fine-tuning of our universe and our Earth for life. But note the intellectually disastrous theses that are casually accepted as alternatives. What if we just accepted it? The way we accept the significance of 1/137.
Absent the Principle, says astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, “most horrifically, carbon-based organic compounds — the building blocks of all life as we know it — would be an impossibility for us.”
Imagine. Non-reactive gold does all that for fungus. Is there anything is nature that is absolutely useless?