What's wrong with this theory?

[Anonymous No.10850490]

If someone tells you that when you no longer exist you experience “blankness” or a void you think about it. Then after thinking about it for a moment, you realize that this statement is false. Because the empty set contains no elements. So if nothing exists, then there is nothing there to observe the set. It follows that you would always be an observer of some object. I'm going to informally call this the “fundamental axiom” just for now.

If you are reading this, then I'm sure we can both agree that you are existing in a universe that is finely tuned for life, and you can trace your existence back through a continuous set of events we call natural history. To the novice observer, they might conclude that the reason why this history and the set of fine tuned laws exists is that they were brought upon by some sort of intelligent designer and that we exist for a reason. But a more astute observer, who accepts the above axiom as truth will conclude that there is nothing special about our universe. If the laws deviated by only small amounts or if our planet had no water on it, then life would not have developed, and there would be no observer to ask the question. This is called the Arthroscopic Principle. Which I believe to be a wrongly named so; since it has nothing to do with being human, but has everything to do with being a generalized observer.

This is how far I find most physicists and philosophers accept their existence. And so would I if it were not for one other question.

(continuted in next comment)

[Anonymous No.10850491]

For you to exist, then there also must be a history of events and a set of laws to allow for your existence. Nothing unusual there. But what about the future? If what I said is true, then the future is NOT obligated to support any life. For you to exist, the past is required to have stable laws and a history that brings about life and your existence, but the future is NOT REQUIRED to exist or be stable for life. And if one finds any evidence that the future is stable enough for life to exist, they we have a problem with this theory. Cosmologist and physicists both agree that the universe will come to an end, but that's not going to happen for while though. So what's wrong with this picture? Wouldn't you expect the universe to end more quickly? Or somehow does a stable past imply a stable future?

[Anonymous No.10850499]

Before I read all your shit let me ask the most important question about every theory:
HOW CAN WE TEST IT?

If you can't test it then it's not science and useless to think about.

[Anonymous No.10850504]

>>10850490
>Arthroscopic Principle
It's the Anthropic Principle.
>>10850491
>the future is NOT REQUIRED to exist or be stable for life
No, but a pretty decent amount of future time might be more common than not for the earlier state of the universe to be able to support life.
As an analogy, would it be easier to sew together a pair of jeans that continues being a pair of jeans one month after purchase, or would it be easier to sew together a pair of jeans than unsews itself after one month?
Once some structure or process emerges it can become more work to undo it than to let it continue as is. In general it's the idea of inertia.

[Anonymous No.10850506]

>>10850499
Oh, yeah. You're right. My bad.