Radi Khrapko wrote:
An answer to the Fermi's question, `Where are they?', is
presented.

Strictly speaking, it is answering a different question,
eg "why don't we observe them", implying the original one is rhetorical. I
don't agree that "Where are they?" is rhetorical. It's really not like there
wasn't a lot of places where we could imagine "them" to be.

The answer is: we are alone because our Universe
is bad for a civilization. The combination of physical constants
does not need to be more fine tuned than is necessary to permit
one civilization and, since extreme fine tuning of the constants
is a very unlikely event, it is most likely that our Universe is
just good enough to permit development of only one
civilization.

Curiously enough, the assumption that we are alone would seem to
allow viewing as "significant fine-tuning" what we would otherwise
have to dismiss as probably irrelevant. Like the size of Moon, or its apparent
diameter being the same as that of the Sun, say, or a lot of similar
coincidences that characterize our particular environment. I believe it
follows from your assumption that the more direct environment of the unique
civilization that develops, must be regarded as very special.

The alternative anthropic principle can be
formulated as follows: `It is most likely to observe a universe
in which civilized life is an extremely rare phenomenon.'

Well, the last extremity of rarity is total absence... isn't it painful that
the truth of your principle is discontinuous as frequency - 0 ?

How do you get at the notion that fine-tuning the universe for an unique
civilization should be less "extreme" than fine-tuning it for many
civilizations ? It seems you imply an appeal to an interestingly pathological
version of the principle of parsimony.

Regards, Boris Borcic
--
L'anthropie met un terme aux dynamiques