judging that none is acceptable
        : see @ 60.vetting_their_explanantia.notes.brec
        feasiblity?  what are my prospects for refuting P?  what for asserting Q?

                P: Hardly could we living noons|cogitants be here
                  absent the cosmic speed limit on causation.
                Q: Easily could we living noons|cogitants be here
                  absent the cosmic speed limit on causation.

                if( P ) then
                    - design might suffice (to explain the safehold)
                    - known rivals (OS, ME) might suffice
                else if( Q ) then
                    - design might suffice
                    † known rivals (OS, ME) would not suffice
                else
                    - unsure, maybe a toss up

            ?+ Does anyone claim P?  Cite any sources that I may read them.  I aim to refute them.
                : see https://gemini.google.com/app/4ab49ea749b4276c :
                  § Immunity from Singularities
                       Limit presence is necessary for that.
                : see https://gemini.google.com/app/66a05730b0178d25 :
                  ¶ Consider then the notion of fine-tuning for a speed limit
                       Limit presence is necessary ∵ ‘the speed of light (*c*) …
                       is a fundamental "gear" in the machinery of all physical laws.’
                \ § Fine-Tuning the Value (*c*)
                \      Limit value *c* is necessary for: element fusion in stars,
                \      also for atomic stability.
                \\ such value-based claims are likely easier to refute
                \\ than the ontological (presence-based) claims
                  § Protection of Causality                        {PC cf. PDS}
                       Limit presence is necessary for ‘the stable, predictable environments
                       required for biological evolution.’
                  § Locality                                       {PL cf. GSSL}
                       Limit presence is necessary ‘for isolated systems (like a solar system)
                       to develop order without being constantly buffeted by every other event
                       in the cosmos.’
                : see https://gemini.google.com/app/a15855dddec6eca0 :
                  § Preservation of Determinism and Sequence       {PDS cf. PC}
                       Limit presence is necessary for that.
                  § Geometric Structure of Spacetime and Locality  {GSSL cf. PL}
                       Limit presence is necessary for that.
                \ § The Luminosity Argument: Fine-Tuning for Stellar Stability
                \     ‘Beyond the ontological requirement for a finite limit …
                \      the particular value… 300,000 km/s … is essential
                \      for the existence of stable, life-supporting stars.’
                \ § Relativistic Biochemistry and the Atomic Scale
                \\ (again) such value-based claims are (I expect) relatively easy to refute
            ?+ What of critics?  Cite them, too.