> Greetings Randy:
>
> "Judging by the way you're mixing your tenses I think you're missing the
> point of the argument."
>
> Actually, I think you've missed the point of mine. You say that this is the
> only universe and the only there will ever be. If that is true, and if we
> grant that we do not yet know how the universe originated, then we cannot
> say what other outcomes are possible. In probability theory, if you have
> only one possible outcome and you do not know what other outcomes are
> possible, then you cannot say what the probability of that outcome, or in
> fact any outcome, would be. As such, by default, the probability of that
> one and only outcome is 1.
But even if this is the only universe there is or ever will be, you have
argued that more than one set of physical constants is possible in this
universe because of the possible fluctuations during the Planck Era. If
this is the case then our number of possible outcomes is still greater
than one; it equals the number of possible combinations of physical
constants.
So you cannot say the universe is improbable and
> Pim cannot say it is probable; it simply is. However, once we have a better
> idea of what other outcomes are possible, then maybe we could assign
> probabilities to the existence of the universe.
>
> "What factors determine these laws?"
>
> The physical nature of the universe.
>
> "But I'm wondering at this point if there were factors more basic than the
> laws of the universe that governed the formation of the laws themselves.
> Were there any factors that were constant through the Planck Era and into
> the post-Planck Era?"
>
> If there were, they would not be physical factors, because no physical
> factor could exist independent of the universe, which it would have to to be
> unaffected by conditions during the Planck Era. If that's the case, then we
> are now talking about mysticism, about "vital" forces that order and control
> the universe. Is that what you mean?
Perhaps, although I'd certainly opt for different terminology. How about
"non-physical" factors? I'm just wondering if science, when it begins to
discuss basic reality, might go in a different methodological direction.
Is a theistic scientist tempted to consider extra-scientific knowledge
when he reaches this level of inquiry?
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Randy Bronson