How do you explain the fact that out of endless possibilities

>>7654778
In whatever kind of wasteland exists outside of our universe, there are no physical laws (e.g. of conservation of mass/energy) to bar universes like ours from popping into existence. Of these universes, only the ones which are stable survive, and of these stable universes, only the ones that can support complex intelligent life give rise to the question of their own existence.

>>7654918

>le fancy re-statement of le weak anthropic principle xD

The first sentence is a novel addition however.

>>7654778
Because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. If we're here, it had to be this "combination"

>>7654925
unfalsifiable nonsense

>>7654925

>le "just because" AP again xxDD

How is the anthropic principle unfalsifiable? It doesn't have to be falsifiable, it's a statistics problem not a scientific theory.

If you have a bucket with red, yellow and blue balls inside and picking the yellow one wins you money. If you won money, what are the chances you picked the yellow ball? It's 100% because the inquiry is dependent on it already having happened. This is a different question than if you asked what were the chances of picking the yellow ball originally.

For us to even be able to consider the chances of our universe being the way it is, is equivalent to having won the money in the analogy. Because even having any questions we have about the universe's origin must necessarily be contingent on it already having happened the way it did, the chances are 100% that it was already so. We can wonder what the chances were that we would eventually be able to ask, before the universe was such that it were inevitable, but this question is both unanswerable given our lack of knowledge about what existed before the big bang or exists outside our universe, and completely inapplicable to any practical intra-universal questions we might have

>>7654928
>>7654929
>>7654923
you're retarded. your question IS unfalsifiable nonsense. >>7654925 is the objectively correct answer and anything else is idiotic babble. the answer is unscientific because the question is unscientific

>>7654966

>le I know/project who every poster is meme xD
>le someone is being a cheeky cunt so he must be le OP gadfly xD
>le not checking the poster count at bottom right during posts to verify that the only duplicate poster so far is >>7654923 >>7654929 and the present post xD

>>7654949
Being unfalsifiable is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that whatever the problem is is off in metaphysics land and that is about it. The idea of falsifiability is not falsifiable, mathematics and logic as a whole are not falsifiable etc. The key is that falsifiability allows for metaphysics while verificationism does not.

>>7654778
So this is what shitposting looks like on /sci/.

if it didn't you wouldn't be here shitposting
therefore the only possible possibility is that it did
it's impossible for it not to have

>>7654778
Let's say there is a chance of [math]1000000^{-1000000000000^{100000000}}[/math] of all this happening.

In the timespan of infinity, there is a 100% chance that life, and our world happens, and let our world be, of all those failed combinations, the one little combination where it DID work.

It's just statistics. Nothing more.

>>7654918
how are there even things like mass and energy?

>>7655229
Nothing was stopping them from coming into existence.

>>7655229
God.

repent faggot

>>7654778

Intelligent

Design

>>7655153
It's zero.

Zero.

Do you know what any number times zero is?

>>7654778
If you flip a coin 1000 times are you then confused that whatever result you got had a 1/2^1000 chance of occurring?

>>7655293
And yet here we are

File: Untitled.png (15KB, 675x145px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 675x145px

>>7654778
>arbitrary
Describing nature as arbitrary makes no sense. Are you saying values like the speed of light and the gravitational constant were selected randomly? How? By whom? They are what they are by necessity, we just don't fully understand it, just like the value of pi might seem arbitrary to someone who doesn't understand geometry.

>>7655229
Considering the laws of physics and the structure of the standard model, how is my balls deep in your mom even possible?

>>7655988
but then who was phone?

>>7654778
>explain the fact ... of arbitrary parameters
not a fact, it's a baseless assumption

>>7655666
>necessity
What necessary? That's just wishful thinking, there is no evidence for that.