Y’all may also like this by Goff:
2 Likes
Looking at the question of calculating that astronomically small probability of of “fine tuned” universe, I see some other mathematical flaws. Many physical constants are linked, meaning that if one changes others change with it. However many factors there are, they certainly are not all independent, leading of a reduction in dimensionality. Instead of 100 independent random factors it could be far fewer; I’d bet there are fewer than 20 independent factors describing the nature of our universe, but I don’t expect any way to settle the question in my lifetime.
This still leave plenty of room for our universe to be unlikely, if that is how you see it, I just think throwing out numbers like 10^229 is a bit dishonest, because it assumes every universal constant is random AND independent of all others, which we already know isn’t true.
It’s never too late to start! 
1 Like
Thanks for proving my point. I never said it was anything other than that.
That’s not an accurate analogy for what the article describes.
Fun fact: if the probability of an event is 1/N, and there are N opportunities for the event to occur, then as N gets large the probability of at least one event is approximately 63%.
This also means that approximately 63% of all possible events will have occurred at least once. It’s hard to deny the possibility of any event when there are many opportunities for that event to occur (proportional to 1/N).
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.