Which would be in the Yes camp. Not what I'd have initially have said was the most likely hypothesis, but along the same lines as what I'd be likely to think in the situation.
Unfortunately this is a fairly bad way of putting the question which I'm really trying to ask. I was trying to find a metaphor for the following complex situation:
1) We find out this is the only universe (there are other possibles, but they definitely haven't happened, and never will, in any sense). 2) We find out that the particular universal constants are the *only* exact combination of constants which could create any form of consciousness (all other possibles produce nothing interesting, point singularities etc.) 3) The constants in question are arbitrary (i.e. in one of the other possible universes, which definitely won't happen in any sense, the constants could have been of an infinity of different values)
Do we then have a good reason for suggesting some sort of intelligence or purpose behind the universe? This is part of an argument to show that a certain sort of agnostism is reasonable.
no subject
Unfortunately this is a fairly bad way of putting the question which I'm really trying to ask. I was trying to find a metaphor for the following complex situation:
1) We find out this is the only universe (there are other possibles, but they definitely haven't happened, and never will, in any sense).
2) We find out that the particular universal constants are the *only* exact combination of constants which could create any form of consciousness (all other possibles produce nothing interesting, point singularities etc.)
3) The constants in question are arbitrary (i.e. in one of the other possible universes, which definitely won't happen in any sense, the constants could have been of an infinity of different values)
Do we then have a good reason for suggesting some sort of intelligence or purpose behind the universe? This is part of an argument to show that a certain sort of agnostism is reasonable.