Roger Penrose (I think it was) used a similar arrow analogy. If we do draw a target around the arrow, the conclusion is that, if the arrow hand landed anywhere else (and we drew the target there instead) it wouldn't allow for life. The idea of other beings often gets raised but the issue is that atoms wouldn't bind together or gravity would rip beings apart.
The multiverse is indeed what some physicists suggest and, if the foundational assumption of the FTA is granted, a multiverse can be inferred.
The idea is that the values of the universal constants have to fall within a very narrow range in order for life to exist. If they were different by even a tiny amount, then life could not have emerged. What is meant by "fine tuning" is the fact that these values even permit life to begin with.
Colin_Mangan OP t1_itzg7ak wrote
Reply to comment by fschiltz in Naturally Fine Tuned for Life - A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism by Colin_Mangan
Roger Penrose (I think it was) used a similar arrow analogy. If we do draw a target around the arrow, the conclusion is that, if the arrow hand landed anywhere else (and we drew the target there instead) it wouldn't allow for life. The idea of other beings often gets raised but the issue is that atoms wouldn't bind together or gravity would rip beings apart.
The multiverse is indeed what some physicists suggest and, if the foundational assumption of the FTA is granted, a multiverse can be inferred.