Thank you very much for the quick reply,
1. Actually, after I thought about it a bit, suddenly I can’t understand myself. But basically, the question of why we are here has an answer: because there are good conditions here that support life. But afterward you can ask whether it is plausible that there would be good conditions here in a blind way. Same thing with a firing squad. The wonder is not that he survived (that the bullets didn’t hit him); the question is why the bullets didn’t hit him. Still, the original question (what is the probability that we would end up on exactly such a planet) is meaningless; it will always be 100% because we live here. The question is how such a world developed.
2. Seemingly, if you created a galaxy exactly like ours, life would form there. You can’t know whether the life formed here because of God or because there are different laws on this planet. (If there were a sun at a distance similar to ours on another planet, and if all the same conditions we have here were there too, like atmosphere etc., then life would form there.) Seemingly what I’m saying is that you’d have to go through all those constants and see that they really do not vary from planet to planet.
3. So plausibility is just a feeling and not something measurable? As opposed to probability.
4. Where do I find the notebooks? What is it called? How can I stay updated on when the trilogy comes out?
Again, thank you very much.

1. You didn’t understand yourself, and now you’re repeating the same thing again? Now I don’t understand. Or maybe you were just explaining my answer here.
2. Indeed. And again, the question is how such a galaxy that allows life came to be (or really, laws of nature that allow it). The laws of nature do not vary between planets. Certainly not in any essential way.
3. Plausibility is a line of reasoning that is not measurable. That is indeed correct. After all, even if we assume that the laws of nature depend on some constant, and its precise value is essential for the creation of life, the probability of getting such an exact value depends on a distribution that you of course do not know. Therefore you talk about plausibility, not probability. It is not plausible that one would get exactly such a precise value of the constant. And if there is a distribution that allows this, it is not plausible that the mechanism that created such a distribution came about on its own by chance.
4. Regarding the notebooks, look under “Miscellaneous.” In the first volume of the trilogy there will be an updated and corrected version.
5. I don’t know exactly. It is now being edited, and I hope within less than a year.

1. Yes, I was trying to explain what I understand and just wanted you to confirm whether that’s the line of thought.
2. In my opinion the change between planets is indeed essential; could you direct me to suitable sources?
3. If plausibility is just a thought, what place does it have here? Just common sense? That changes from person to person. Is it plausible that such a precise constant would come out? I don’t know—I don’t think my opinion here can move us toward the truth about why that precise constant remained what it is.
4. Thank you very much.
5. Same here, thank you.

2. Sources for what: for the fact that all planets have the same system of physical laws?
3. Wherever there is no calculation, you need plausibility considerations. When a person answers your question about the time and you wonder whether he is lying to you or not, you have no calculation. But plausibility says that he is not lying. Likewise, the emergence of a precise constant when you do not know the distribution is not a probabilistic calculation (unless in the absence of information you assume a uniform distribution). Your opinion is the only thing that will move you forward.

2. Yes, is that agreed upon? In my opinion the small changes between planets are very significant, and they are what affect the creation of man דווקא here.
3. If it is just an opinion, then there is no argument here at all. You hold this way and I hold that way; there’s nowhere to go in terms of arguments. The plausibility that a person tells the time correctly is high because from my experience I have met many people who told me the time and were right (it matched many things for me afterward), so seemingly I assume that the next person will also tell the truth. But with the plausibility of a precise constant, I have no experience with such things (I have never tried to create such a coefficient in a world of our own), so I have no intuitive sense of plausibility about it.

2. I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the argument. Of course that is agreed upon. There are changes between planets, but not in the laws of nature—rather in the data (distances from the sun, radius, mass, temperature, ground structure, etc.). The values of the constants do not change. Therefore this has no importance for our discussion, since these laws of nature, and only they, allow biology (even if it arises only on one of the planets—ours). Under different laws of physics there would be no biology, and then no living beings could have formed anywhere. My question is why the laws of physics are these specifically and not others. This has nothing to do with planets and the differences that do or do not exist between them.
3. It is not just an opinion. Plausibility also has a logic to it, even if it cannot be calculated. The principle of causality or induction are matters of plausibility, and they have no observational source (as David Hume showed), and still they are the foundation of rational thought. The fact that you met various people who told you the correct time means nothing, unless you adopt the principle of induction and generalize from the people you met to other people. You have no probabilistic calculation to ground that, and yet you accept it because it is plausible.

2. I understand, so you are asking what the chance is that there would be such laws that give any possibility of life in reality at all? If so, then how can one even talk about plausibility here? This is a one-time event that happened—how can I, as a human being, say whether this thing is plausible or not? It seems more logical to me to say that the universe simply came into being with some laws (one could wonder whether there even had to be laws at all), and if because of them we live then here we are to wonder about it, and if not then not (back to the previous argument). I don’t understand how this is an argument for God.
3. Okay, so in the example I gave, you actually justified the plausibility by induction or some other tool. The question is why mere assumptions, about which we have neither induction nor causality, are plausible.

Think, out of all the possible systems of laws on earth, what is the plausibility that one system of laws would come into being, and that it would be exactly the special one that allows life. Therefore it is plausible to infer that there is a guiding hand that created them.
All right, I’ve completely exhausted this. All the best.

Y., there is one point the Rabbi did not clarify, namely that induction is not the justification for accepting plausibility; on the contrary, there is no reason at all to rely on induction except for its plausibility, which we know through our intuition. So if you do not want to accept the plausibility of things on the basis of our reasoning—then don’t rely on induction either (and don’t fly in an airplane, for example. Gravity is known only on the basis of induction).