My robot friends tell me that the Universe is looking very good for robots. Most places, they say, are rocky iceballs. The rock is good to mine for aluminum, silicon, titanium and ferrous minerals used in making robots, thus enabling their population to grow. As robots they are of course very happy in vacuum. In fact the cold (below freezing in most places) is thermodynamically beneficial since it makes cooling their power plants simple and contributes to everybody's efficiency. They find the Universe's cold dry vacuum both healthful and invigorating. My friends believe that the Universe is, in fact, highly favorable to robotic life, and one of the mysteries which they are investigating is how it could possibly be so well adjusted for them to thrive and enjoy their existence. They consider themselves Androids---a word which in their language means "The People" and they do in fact resemble humans in many ways. They like to tell humorous riddles and exchange music videos. They surf the web, just as we do, and even make up insulting poems. They have also invented many forms of what I can only describe as "sex". Theoretical physics is a great deal easier for android beings than it is for us. It represents hardly any challenge at all. They all understand why the physical constants are what they are, causing the periodic table of elements to be as it is, chemistry as well, and the stellar life cycle, the generic makeup of planetary systems, and so forth. The obvious reason that things are arranged as they are, that Nature is so "fine-tuned" as they say, is to make the world good for androids. Indeed as good as it possibly can be, since it doubtless is so. This is called the Androidic Principle. An understanding of this basic explanatory principle is built into everyone's programming. There is virtually no piece of hardware that does not understand this. Even rocks probably know it, to the extent one considers them an immobile unresponsive type of robot. Or so it is thought. ==================== The above sample essay is intended to initiate discussion of Anthropic explanations of why the cosmos, the laws of physics, and the dimensionless constants are what they are. Personally I don't think that kind of explanation is at all satisfactory and from what I can tell it has gradually declined in popularity since a period around 2005-2007 when it got a lot of attention. From all I can see the fashion of "multiverse" thinking has also been on the decline. If you want some historical evidence of how that has been going, please ask. One way to gauge that kind of development is to compare the programs of the major international scientific conferences, particularly the lists of invited talks. If something is fashionable there tend to be a lot of talks about it at the important professional gatherings. The information is on line and readily available. A serious issue with anthropic reasoning is prediction. To some extent prediction-trouble infects most types of multiversal thinking. You may have views on this, or evidence one way or the other. In any case the matter is open for discussion.