deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 5efe51d..70f6d33 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
The \paper{} below started as a mathematical attempt to understand what it would mean to live in a world that is not designed, but, in the end, the mathematical part turned out to be rather small, containing only a few simple properties about set cardinalities and probabilities. I think that the non-mathematical ideas are fairly obvious consequences of the mathematical ones, so many people have already thought about them – I have also found quotes from various people that seem to hint at the idea below. However, I did not manage yet to find anyone drawing the same conclusions in the same way. The closest I could get is the idea that the order of the Universe implies or suggests that there is a God. The fine-tuning of the Universe is also close\footnote{\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe}{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned\_Universe}}. However, I think that what I'm presenting in this \paper{} is different from what I have read about both of these, maybe being complementary to the fine-tuning argument.  For a description of the fine-tuning argument see \href{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#CosFinTun}{http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#CosFinTun}. I think that the argument presented in this paper solves most, if not all of the fine-tuning objections in the quoted page?, while improving the probability constraints, i.e. it shows that our Universe has a zero probability. However, this paper does not present an improvement of the fine-tuning argument, it describes a different way to compute the probability of our Universe, so it can have its own set of objections.  Since it started as a mathematical \paper{} I may use \ghilimele{we} instead of \ghilimele{I} more often than I should, but you should consider it an invitation to work together in discovering some ideas. And if some of those ideas are wrong or unclear\footnote{Given my lack of experience with philosophy this is more probable than I would like.}, I welcome counterarguments and feedback\footnote{Authorea allows everyone to comment on the \paper{}. I may switch to a different commenting system if it turns out that something better is needed. You can also try e-mailing design dash and dash chance at poarta dot org.}.  I recommend exporting this \paper{} as, say, PDF because Authorea makes it hard to read the footnotes.