Hacker News Reader

Comment by mquander | Hacker News Reader

Not if you rephrase the argument. Regarding the pebble, one might say that no matter which pebble he chose, its measurements would be unique and equally "unlikely." Similarly, no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in, it would have equally "unlikely" parameters enabling us to live in it.

View on HN

"no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in"

But you can't just assume that our existence is necessary. We might not have existed at all.

Any universe in which a thinking being exists will be suited to the existence of that thinking being.

No one can claim "isn't it suprising that the universe suits me" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)

Any universe in which I win powerball 10 times in a row will be suited to me winning powerball 10 times in a row.

I can't claim "isn't it suprising that I won powerball 10 times in a row" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)

Do you know how unlikely you are to win 10 times in a row? The odds of you winning 10 times in a row are exactly the same as the odds demonstrated by the results of the last 10 times powerball was run.

Do you find the results of last 10 powerball runs surprising?

Wait I think I misinterpreted both of or you just switched sides.

samh is now for the anthropic principle (things are the way they are because they are).

while gort is now against the anthropic principle (you can't assume existence is necessary, so explain why we are here).

Yep That's the crux of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com