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.
Putting aside my complete lack of inclination to check your ever moving goalposts of asspulled napkin math for a moment.
These are probabilities. It can take anywhere from 1 to X attempts to actually attain the random result being calculated for in practice. You don't just unlock the result automatically once you try the statistically most probable number of combinations. Guessing the right answer even on the first guess isn't proof of design, it's still congruent with just being incredibly lucky. That whole "the universe isn't old enough to try shuffling enough combinations of physical laws" shtick doesn't work because it is random, the universe was old enough as soon as it existed, with enough luck.
Nevermind that no-one outside of an asylum would propose a universe that randomly shifted physical laws on a plank time scale (interesting that that is the only constant you didn't treat as variable here, almost like it served some purpose to bias the asspull math) until life appeared then just stopped to have observably constant physical laws. But even that bizarre thought experiment is fundamentally wrong, because you are still confusing highly unlikely with impossible.
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]
They’re defined as such by the equations they’re used in
Equations don't create the universe, they describe it.
This goes to what I originally wrote about "effect therefore cause" reasoning, which is what you're doing here (you really should reread it). Our universe is described by equations with particular values (effect) so therefore according to you some creator picked those particular values (cause).
You can't start from the effect and know the cause. Effect can suggest a cause, and then you go off and prove that's indeed the cause of the effect, if it is. Here you'd go off and prove God exists and created the universe a particular way. Instead you've taken the effect and proclaimed it's proof of the cause - which is actually magical, backwards thinking.
Unfortunately invoking the magical idol of “Anthropic Principle” is no argument
Unfortunately for you, creating a magical strawman isn't an argument. How many universes are there? Do you understand the reason now why you can't answer any of these questions I've posed? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing; nobody has answers other than the universe exists (to us) and is how it is.
Equations don't create the universe, they describe it.
Do humans invent math or discover it?
Effect can suggest a cause
Effect: an ordered, non-random universe which appears to contain meaning and operate based on the principles of math and logic, all hallmarks of intelligence
Suggested cause: an intelligent design
and then you go off and prove that's indeed the cause of the effect
Elaborated proof: the post I linked to in the first place
How many universes are there
One, hence “uni-verse”
Do you understand the reason now why you can't answer any of these questions I've posed? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing; nobody has answers other than the universe exists (to us) and is how it is.
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.
Putting aside my complete lack of inclination to check your ever moving goalposts of asspulled napkin math for a moment.
These are probabilities. It can take anywhere from 1 to X attempts to actually attain the random result being calculated for in practice. You don't just unlock the result automatically once you try the statistically most probable number of combinations. Guessing the right answer even on the first guess isn't proof of design, it's still congruent with just being incredibly lucky. That whole "the universe isn't old enough to try shuffling enough combinations of physical laws" shtick doesn't work because it is random, the universe was old enough as soon as it existed, with enough luck.
Nevermind that no-one outside of an asylum would propose a universe that randomly shifted physical laws on a plank time scale (interesting that that is the only constant you didn't treat as variable here, almost like it served some purpose to bias the asspull math) until life appeared then just stopped to have observably constant physical laws. But even that bizarre thought experiment is fundamentally wrong, because you are still confusing highly unlikely with impossible.
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]
Equations don't create the universe, they describe it.
This goes to what I originally wrote about "effect therefore cause" reasoning, which is what you're doing here (you really should reread it). Our universe is described by equations with particular values (effect) so therefore according to you some creator picked those particular values (cause).
You can't start from the effect and know the cause. Effect can suggest a cause, and then you go off and prove that's indeed the cause of the effect, if it is. Here you'd go off and prove God exists and created the universe a particular way. Instead you've taken the effect and proclaimed it's proof of the cause - which is actually magical, backwards thinking.
Unfortunately for you, creating a magical strawman isn't an argument. How many universes are there? Do you understand the reason now why you can't answer any of these questions I've posed? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing; nobody has answers other than the universe exists (to us) and is how it is.
Do humans invent math or discover it?
Effect: an ordered, non-random universe which appears to contain meaning and operate based on the principles of math and logic, all hallmarks of intelligence
Suggested cause: an intelligent design
Elaborated proof: the post I linked to in the first place
One, hence “uni-verse”
Again, just restating the Anthropic Principle.