The mathematics involved is merely the argument, voiced recently in genuiune scientific forums, that the parameters of the universe are just right for life and therefore are evidence that the universe was created with us in mind. I'm afraid I must counter that this argument is somewhat misguided. Its proponents successfully argue that stars, water, and other things upon which our lives depend would not exist if the parameters of theoretical physics were altered more than slightly. However, they cannot really expect me to believe that they can tell whether some sort of life would develop in these alternate universes. In particular, I seriously doubt that if I gave them the parameters that we believe describe this universe that they would be able to successfully predict all of this exciting stuff that happens on the human scale without their advance knowledge (a cheat sheet if you will) that comes from having experienced and studied it in person. I strongly suspect that in at least some other hypothetical universes, creatures of anti-matter or quasi-particles or something we can't even imagine would develop just as we have here. Well, that's my view on it anyway. In any case, it should be noted that this "anthropic principle" has been with us for a long time and is on the run. In particular, each time it was suggested before (using the adaptation of creatures for their environment or the location of the Earth as evidence of deistic intervention) it was later found to be an empty argument once science caught up with the problem. All I'm suggesting is that this will happen too with the "constants of nature" version of the argument.

In any case, this was a fun read. (The aliens are hilarious.) So, I can recommend it even if I find the ideas a bit hard to swallow.