Because that is what we observe in universes. We observe constants.
Loudmouth........ that is only what what we observe in ours. You can't make that plural because you can't claim that other universes exist.
Because they are nonsense.
You said you are an Empiricist. When you claim that other universes must be considered without empirical knowledge that they do, that self refutes your position. It is common sense, not nonsense.
No, I am saying that we have to know the absolute number of universes. This does not require that other universes exist.
Read what you just wrote. IF other universes do not exist then we do not have to know the number because the number is zero. Yet, I still don't even know what you are trying to refute. Do you feel there is sufficient evidence to claim that the universe is fine tuned?
The number could be 1, but we need to know that it is just one before you can claim that it is improbable that it is improbable for our universe to have the constants that it has.
Our universe is fine tuned and so it can't be improbable for it to be so. This universe is fine tuned to the life it supports. Plain and simple. Either you believe that is true or you don't. It doesn't matter whether that is due to the fact that other universes exist or not.
You lack the evidence that the universe was fine tuned for the purpose of producing intelligent life.
True. I didn't claim that. I said that the fact that the universe is fine tuned and produced intelligent life due to the fine tuning supports my claims.
I have shown why it is relevant.
No you haven't.
So you have never claimed that it is improbable that our universe would have the constants it has by chance?
Improbable yes, impossible no.
So what makes it so unlikely? How are you calculating this probability?
I didn't. Scientists have.
Let's use the planets as an example. It may very well be that the conditions needed for life to emerge on a planet come in a very narrow range. If Earth were the only planet in the Universe then the odds of that single planet having just the right conditions would be unlikely. However, we see that the universe could contain trillions of planets, so the odds of one of them having just the right conditions are actually not that unlikely.
It doesn't mean that they are not which is the point. It may make the probability less but the fine tuned universe is still there. We might bring that value down from what Smolin had but it remains just the same. Perhaps not as great in the number but still too great to ignore. Regardless, the fact that the universe is fine tuned, and without that fine tuning life as we know it could not have arose; means that it is evidence (scientifically calculated) supports my claim.
That is why you need to know the absolute number of universes. Saying we know of just one does not change the need to know just how many there really are.
You need to know this for the probability value, you don't need it to determine the fine tuning argument. It is fine tuned to support the life on earth. That is true. Why that is can be debated, but the fact of it being fine tuned can not.
If you can't supply the number then your claims of it being unlikely are baseless. It is like pretending that the winner of the lottery is the only person who played, and being stunned by how unlikely it is that this person won.
I hope we have settled this now.
You are pointing to our ignorance of how universes are made as the basis of your argument.
No, I said that you don't have evidence on the basis of your argument. IF you can't prove whether or not the universe is by chance without knowing the number of universes, it stands to reason that you can't show it was by chance without knowing the same.
I am saying that no matter what the universe is like you will conclude that it is finely tuned.
We have one universe that is fine tuned and we have no other. Period. We can never have another. We could at sometime in the future have indirect supportive evidence of other universes but you will be in the same spot as I am now. All we can show is that it support our claims. It is outside of our narrow window of experience.
Notice how ghosts, spirits, and deities are mentioned?
Can I read, I posted it. Did you even read the part that I highlighted?
T
hey used to say that there were no other galaxies because we couldn't see any.
Well for now we have what we have.