If the universe we find ourselves in is a result of post-selecting for mathematical models where life can exist (i.e. by the anthropic principle), why is the universe <i>so large</i> and <i>so rich in neg-entropy</i>? Shouldn&#x27;t minimally-viable-habitat universes be vastly, <i>vastly</i> more numerous (and don&#x27;t forget about Boltzmann brains!)? Shouldn&#x27;t we expect to be in one of those, instead of here, and be forced to penalize the hypothesis by a corresponding amount? [1]<p>&gt; <i>So, as cosmologists, we have an issue to address — why was the entropy of our early universe so small? If high-entropy states are “natural,” why don’t we live in one? You might think to appeal to the dreaded anthropic principle, and argue that life couldn’t exist in a state with really high entropy. But that turns out not to be good enough; the entropy of our universe is much much lower than it needs to be to support the existence of life. So we are faced with the “arrow of time problem.”</i><p>1: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.preposterousuniverse.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2004&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;the-arrow-of-time&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.preposterousuniverse.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2004&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;the-arro...</a>