"To me the 'specialness' of the universe is based on the seemingly fine-tuned physical constants that make my life possible here(although the fact of this fine-tuning may not be as evident as I previously thought). This specialness is independent of my belief in it."
Not really. The only reason why you believe fine-tuning is special is because you define it as such. For an anthropicist, this "fine-tuning" is simply one of many characteristics of our universe, no more or less special than any other.
"Would it be more accurate to say that there 'may' be a difference?"
No. Conceptually speaking, there is a definite difference between saying "no explanation will ever be found" and "no explanation has yet been found".
"Until this explanation is found there's no guarantee that it ever will be found is there?"
This statement is based on the logical fallacy which says that because something has not been proven true, it must be false. Yes, I know you do not say that such an explanation will never be found, but that is an underlying assumption of the ID theory, otherwise there would be no need to suggest ID as an alternative to naturalistic mechanisms. Besides being a logical fallacy, the history of science also demonstrates that science has not failed to find explanations for any natural phenomenon. So why should fine-tuning be any different?
"This statement also seems to give the universe the power to change it's own physical constants, which would make them not very constant. This doesn't quite resonate with me. Am I misunderstanding you here?"
Yes, but it's natural. Much of cosmology is counter-intuitive. Once the universe formed its combination of constant values was set, but during the Planck Era just instants after the Big Bang the laws of physics that would determine the values for these constants were still in flux. It is during this time that the universe could have "changed it's own physical constants" without contradicting the fact these will be constants by the time the universe is about two minutes old.
"Wow, that last statement certainly is counter-intuitive."
Not really. If there is enough matter to cause the universe to collapse in on itself to become an object less than 10^-33 cm in diameter, the four fundamental forces - including gravity - will merge into a single force. Also at that scale the universe will become an energetic, writhing "foam" just like that described for the baby universe theory. Finally, the temperature of the universe will exceed 10^32 degrees Kelvin. Under those conditions the new "cosmological nucleus" would only last an instant before it rebound under the pressure created by the compressed energy and matter.
"This is even more counter-intuitive. Let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that science has observed the creation of matter."
Yes and no. The creation of virtual particles does seem to violate the law of conservation of mass, but virtual particle creation is governed by quantum mechanics, including the uncertainty principle. In a tiny system, over very short periods, energy and mass are so uncertain that they may be many times greater or smaller than there values a moment before. It is these fluctuations that can cause virtual particles to appear. Nearly always these particles disappear again before they can be detected, which is why they are called "virtual" particles. However, the presence of these particles can influence the behavior of other more permanent particles, so we can indirectly detect their presence.
"That where before there was only nothingness a new particle has appeared out of nowhere (literally)."
Very, very, very, very rarely, however, a virtual particle persists. At that point we can detect it, so yes. However, be very careful how you define "nothingness". On a sub-quantum level, "nothingness" is far from nothing.
"That this is not a case of the particle simply entering the experimenter's perception but of it actually arising from nothing. Is this correct?"
Yes. All of the virtual particles so far detected have been by instruments that monitor high-energy particle experiments. Since no experiment can totally eliminate all foreign particles, the instruments detect them at the beginning of the experiment and mathematically cancel them out as background noise. As such, if the "virtual" particle had in fact been there all along the instruments would have detected it and eliminated it (mathematically) so it would never show up at the end of the experiment as a new particle. If, however, the particle had not been their at the start of the experiment, but is there at the end of the experiment, the instruments will detect it and register it as a new particle.
"Then you say that the 'nothingness before the Big Bang MIGHT have been energetic enough...'. Does the 'might' mean that present research is inconclusive or that no research is possible on this question at the present time?"
Both. The current models that predict baby universes are not detailed enough yet to say if the nothingness before the Big Bang was energetic enough to create universes and currently we cannot make the models more detailed.
"And what is meant by the term 'virtual' universe. It seems to me that a universe either has to exist or not exist with no partial state in between."
A universe that appears and disappears so fast that a hypothetical (non-divine) observer cannot directly detect it is be definition a virtual universe. Once again it's all tied into quantum mechanical principles, where one can have intermediate states where something is neither one thing entirely or another (or to state it more correctly, it is all possibilities all at once).
"To extrapolate this idea, is it believed possible for a full-fledged universe to simply come into being from nothingness?"
That's not an extrapolation; that is exactly what the baby universe theory claims. Again, however, be very careful how you define "nothingness".
"But do I correctly understand you to say above that there is