It's a very flaky argument. Because it doesn't predict anything. It's a classic example of postdiction: its just saying, oh well, it has to be this way, because otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it. There are many other logical flaws in the argument which I could point to, but the basic point is that this argument doesn't really get you anywhere. Its not predictive and it isn't testable.
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle used the fact that carbon-12 is abundant in the universe as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance, in what is arguably the only case of success of the application of the Anthropic Principle ... triple alpha processes that requires the existence of a resonance in a given very specific location in the spectra of carbon-12 nuclei.
« Older An action packed thriiler... | Since its viral reenactment of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt