| |
| ▲ | kstrauser 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not true. If life has the odds of one in a quadrillion of happening, and we're here to discuss it, then we're that one in a quadrillion. If we weren't, we wouldn't be alive. By definition, we were the lucky ones with the perfect conditions that resulted in us. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is what I meant. But I don't think we are "lucky", because we are part of the world, not something that was placed inside it by choice. It is like asking why is Nile in Egypt and not in some other place. If Nile is in some other place, it would not be Nile...So does it make sense to say that Nile is lucky to be in Egypt? No, I think it does not make sense... |
| |
| ▲ | jibal 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sorry, but nothing you have said here is true or makes sense. Multi worlds are universes, not worlds within our universe. The multiworld interpretation is one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics of the exact same evidence--one or the other interpretation being "true" has no empirical implications. And it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with the distribution of nucleotides. And it's incoherent to call an observed event "impossible". You seem to mean that you think that it is highly unlikely, but offer no reason to think so ... nor for the bizarre claim that "Multi worlds is the only way". I suspect that you are mixing up a very confused understanding of "Multi worlds" with some version of the anthropic principle. But the anthropic principle is an a posteriori explanation of an a priori unlikely occurrence, it's not a "way" for something to happen. I won't comment further unless you offer a convincing proof of your assertion. |
|
