You further posit that this chaotic universe, for no reason at all (because remember, reason doesn’t exist in your universe), gives rise to logic and order.
You have no justification for this, no prior observations of anything approaching this scenario, and in fact we observe only the opposite - without conscious direction, ORDER becomes CHAOS, never the opposite way around.
What's the chance of it randomly deciding to operate on logic?
Feel free to go back to the start and try to formulate an answer to this. Considering it can be demonstrated to be the multiplicative product of googolplex by googolplex calculations (1x10^-120 for lamda for example, in addition to 25 or 26 other fundamental and importantly independent variables, which can have their possible changes before breaking some fundamental process calculated and multiplied together to get a number which effectively approaches 1/∞)
That number you pulled out of your ass could be TREE(3) and it's still vastly too small to be effectively 1/∞, infinitely too small technically.
Also, single numbers don't "approach" limits, functions do. What you just proposed isn't a function, it's just a specific calculation that has lots of zeros. Learn to math my friend.
it's still vastly too small to be effectively 1/∞, infinitely too small technically.
Except for the inferred fact that the universe is on the order of 1x10^60 plank time units old. You could perform a random operation literally as often as is physically possible and still be more orders of magnitude away from the magnitude of the VERY FIRST TERM IN A 27+ TERM MULIPLICATION than you started (122 exp - 60 exp = 62 exp, 62>60).
That is, like the randomly shuffled deck of cards(10^67), effectively infinite. You will NEVER be able to achieve what we observe through random chance, and that’s according to the very Standard Model which you bow to.
How do you know those are even variables much less independent? How do you know that all of those hypothesized universes don't also exist? Or that they even could exist? You don't.
We know nothing other than the universe we're in exists (to us). Again, if you would actually read my original comment...
Since you seem to be having a really hard time with this concept imagine there are six possibilities for one of these things you call a variable, and six universes one with each value for it.
You're in the universe with a 1 for that 'variable', what's the chance of that happening? It's not 1/6, it's 100%; you cannot be in a different universe than the one you're in; QED. This represents the result if there are many universes.
Or if a six-sided dice is rolled and "1" is on every face, what's the chance of it rolling 1? It's not 1/6 it's 100%. This represents the result if the thing you assume are variable are not actually.
Replace 1/6 with infinite, the chance of these things is still 100%. If you don't know how many dice rolls or what dice are rolled you can say nothing about the probability. And you don't know these things.
How do you know that all of those hypothesized universes don't also exist
What, “multiverse theory” combined with “Anthropic Principle”? Unfortunately invoking the magical idol of “Anthropic Principle” is no argument, as Roger Penrose points out:
“It [the Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
You're in the universe with a 1 for that 'variable', what's the chance of that happening? It's not 1/6, it's 100%
Ackshully it’s 50/50, either it happens or it doesn’t [note, hopefully by my use of an exaggerated and clearly incorrect statistical argument, you can reflect on the fact that all you’ve done in this section is restate the Anthropic Principle which can be summarily dismissed as an argument. Invoking it is the true circular, tautological argument, even though you currently see the initial argument made in the title that way]
You posit a universe which is governed by chaos
You further posit that this chaotic universe, for no reason at all (because remember, reason doesn’t exist in your universe), gives rise to logic and order.
You have no justification for this, no prior observations of anything approaching this scenario, and in fact we observe only the opposite - without conscious direction, ORDER becomes CHAOS, never the opposite way around.
Still not answering the question. And the reason why is obvious: you don't know. It could be infinitesimally small or it could be 100%.
I didn't say that at all. Go back and reread what I wrote.
Feel free to go back to the start and try to formulate an answer to this. Considering it can be demonstrated to be the multiplicative product of googolplex by googolplex calculations (1x10^-120 for lamda for example, in addition to 25 or 26 other fundamental and importantly independent variables, which can have their possible changes before breaking some fundamental process calculated and multiplied together to get a number which effectively approaches 1/∞)
That number you pulled out of your ass could be TREE(3) and it's still vastly too small to be effectively 1/∞, infinitely too small technically.
Also, single numbers don't "approach" limits, functions do. What you just proposed isn't a function, it's just a specific calculation that has lots of zeros. Learn to math my friend.
Except for the inferred fact that the universe is on the order of 1x10^60 plank time units old. You could perform a random operation literally as often as is physically possible and still be more orders of magnitude away from the magnitude of the VERY FIRST TERM IN A 27+ TERM MULIPLICATION than you started (122 exp - 60 exp = 62 exp, 62>60).
That is, like the randomly shuffled deck of cards(10^67), effectively infinite. You will NEVER be able to achieve what we observe through random chance, and that’s according to the very Standard Model which you bow to.
How do you know those are even variables much less independent? How do you know that all of those hypothesized universes don't also exist? Or that they even could exist? You don't.
We know nothing other than the universe we're in exists (to us). Again, if you would actually read my original comment...
Since you seem to be having a really hard time with this concept imagine there are six possibilities for one of these things you call a variable, and six universes one with each value for it.
You're in the universe with a 1 for that 'variable', what's the chance of that happening? It's not 1/6, it's 100%; you cannot be in a different universe than the one you're in; QED. This represents the result if there are many universes.
Or if a six-sided dice is rolled and "1" is on every face, what's the chance of it rolling 1? It's not 1/6 it's 100%. This represents the result if the thing you assume are variable are not actually.
Replace 1/6 with infinite, the chance of these things is still 100%. If you don't know how many dice rolls or what dice are rolled you can say nothing about the probability. And you don't know these things.
They’re defined as such by the equations they’re used in
This is established rigorously by the standard model. Here is some further reading if you want it:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html
What, “multiverse theory” combined with “Anthropic Principle”? Unfortunately invoking the magical idol of “Anthropic Principle” is no argument, as Roger Penrose points out:
Ackshully it’s 50/50, either it happens or it doesn’t [note, hopefully by my use of an exaggerated and clearly incorrect statistical argument, you can reflect on the fact that all you’ve done in this section is restate the Anthropic Principle which can be summarily dismissed as an argument. Invoking it is the true circular, tautological argument, even though you currently see the initial argument made in the title that way]