u/Infamous_Key_9945

Does anyone else ever get the sense that fine tuning as an argument assumes a very narrow range of changeable values? Like if the unviersal constants can vary, why not the laws of physics themselves? Why are the equations rigid while the values change? What great physicist has created a model of all of the variations and identified where atoms can form? How do we know atoms are the only possible structure that can cause things to exist?

It feels like for the fine tuning arguement to work, you have to accept some things as necessary, like the equations that govern physics, while assuming other things are not, like universal constants. Without doing this, we cannot make statements of probability, or how narrow the odds were everything landed just so. Without this assumption we are just looking at a subset of possibilities close to this one.

Hi all, I've been poking around systems for the classic fantasy style ttrpg game. but I have a specific thing I'm looking for. I want a system that consists almoat entirely of 'encounter based' powers like 4e dnd had. I want it to be largely neutral to balancing outside of maybe hp and a few once per day type abilities, how many encounters I run. If the players fight the boss as the only thing in an adventure day, I want that to be fine, mechanically, so I don't constantly have to think about attrition and inter class balancing with respect to it.

It's a very simple hypothetical. Say a person is made aware through arguement or logic of something. Some moral arguement with a call to action. They are convinced that the action is preferable to inaction, or whatever the alternative is. However, they find the inaction to be much easier and reason that they are 'sufficiently moral' even if there is morally preferable options available. What do we say to this person? Who has written about this?