I feel like "anthropics" has precisely as much explanatory power as "coincidence"; it's a last resort, and yeah insofar as it's metaphysical, twenty years of pondering it hasn't satisfied me
-
-
Replying to @willdoingthings @vandeRede
But I feel like a more Copernican answer is likely and we just don't know it yet. If it's physically unlikely on its face but I still want a physical explanation. It would be very frightening to find that we are in one of countless simulations of the original planet
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @willdoingthings @vandeRede
i think we're too close to the beginning of the stelliferous era for a truly copernican answer to make sense. not sure though
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
wikipedia timeline of future superficially confirms but not sure i've taken everything relevant into account
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
otoh what hypotheses do predict that we would be near a very early but not extremely early star?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
"we're the first" predicts this but only for a pretty limited parameter range i think
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
i think most of the parameter range predicts either very beginning of stelliferous or (like zoo hypothesis) predicts random moment within it
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
though idk if the relevant period is stelliferous or some part of it where a further condition obtains
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
or i mean, i don't actually know what zoo hypothesis predicts. but i mean hypotheses that predict the stars continue their natural evolution
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
looks like maybe science doesn't know what the relevant era is either https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08448
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
the sun is on a logarithmic scale almost as old as the entire universe. i don't have an argument for why this seems weird but it does
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.