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.
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.
Prove it.