Q&A: Questions
Questions
Question
Hello Dr. Michael Abraham,
Wouldn’t it be better to change the definition and the other surrounding points in the third booklet? The fact that some person won a lottery does not require an explanation, since someone had to win it, as I said. Only if someone had predicted in advance that a particular person would win, and he in fact did win, would that require an explanation, because here the specialness was defined a priori and not a posteriori.
As for what was presented here in the response article to Etologica, which in my opinion is extremely important—that the sequence has a high potential to be selected by some intelligent being.
Answer
I did not understand the claim. Clearly there is a difference between a priori specialness and a posteriori specialness. But a posteriori specialness also has meaning in different circumstances. I do not know what your remarks are directed at.
Discussion on Answer
A, where is your article?
I wrote the article, see here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bws0Lni1BgE-bWhxZm8zWURrZVE/view
And a discussion that developed בעקבות it, here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8-%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
The missing point was completed in the response article. After that article, it is hard to write seriously against the physico-theological proof.
The issue is that there is an intelligent being and a potential outcome that was selected.
That is the important thing I did not find in the third booklet. And that is why I made this comment.
One more general point that in my opinion should be sharpened: it is not a definition of a life-tuned universe, as the booklet gives the impression, because that is a vague definition.
Rather, as you wrote here on the site but not in the booklet, it is something like a lottery among possible systems of laws with possible constants. That makes the argument very strong (at least in my opinion)