Text 1: Physicist Dr. Sarah Long explains fine-tuning. "Physical constants appear precisely calibrated for life," Long writes. "Slight variations would produce universes where complexity is impossible. This apparent design requires explanation."
Text 2: Physicist Dr. David Park offers anthropic reasoning. "Observer selection effects explain fine-tuning," Park argues. "Only life-permitting universes can be observed. We shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in one—we couldn't exist to be surprised in others."
How does Park's anthropic reasoning address Long's puzzle?
By denying that constants have values
By explaining why only life-permitting values could be observed
By claiming fine-tuning doesn't occur
By arguing physics cannot study constants
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Park explains that observers necessarily find themselves in life-permitting universes—selection bias. The puzzle dissolves when we realize we could only observe compatible values.
- Evidence: Park: "we couldn't exist to be surprised in others."
- Reasoning: Observer selection explains apparent calibration.
- Conclusion: Fine-tuning is explained by observation conditions.
Choice A is incorrect because Park discusses constant values. Choice C is incorrect because Park accepts the observation. Choice D is incorrect because Park does physics.