"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."
But we don't know how many of these other combinations are viable, if any.
We simply don't know know enough yet to say whether our universe is one of
many possible, or the most likely of only a few possible, or even all that
can be. Until we do know enough, we cannot say whether our universe is
probable, improbable or certain. All we can say for now is that it is;
probability unity (1).
"Perhaps, although I'd certainly opt for different terminology. How about
'non-physical' factors?"
Call it whatever you like; it's still the same thing.
"I'm just wondering if science, when it begins to discuss basic reality,
might go in a different methodological direction."
I would tend to doubt it; so far it hasn't needed to. Besides, since
science cannot study "non-physical factors", to go that direction would turn
science into just another form of mysticism, and we have enough of that as
it is already.
"Is a theistic scientist tempted to consider extra-scientific knowledge when
he reaches this level of inquiry?"
As a theistic scientist, I can consider any knowledge I like, but if I can't
test it against physical reality then it is worthless as a scientific
theory.
Kevin L. O'Brien