Challenging the fine-tuning – what is the probability space and distribution?

One of the problems of physicists and mathematicians, whether they are at NASA or not, is that they ignore philosophical questions and focus on calculations. There is no question of distribution here at all. Even if there is any distribution, someone created it. Your claim that there are strange and non-uniform distributions in nature is irrelevant to the discussion. They were also created somehow (in my opinion, God created them too, so this proves nothing for our purposes). Therefore, the question is directly about the results (= the universe) without any connection to the underlying distribution. The distribution is part of the universe that I am examining. We are trying to decide between two hypotheses here: 1. The universe was created blindly at random (by whom? or what?). 2. It was created by a deliberate agent. If it was created randomly, there is no distribution that controls the outcome, since this distribution is itself part of the universe that requires explanation. We will ask about it who created it and why. And for our purposes, the question is whether it is likely that a universe created by some random means would be created with laws that are exactly like this. If you want, there is a distribution in the background that causes the laws to be like this, then I will ask who created it. In the end, de facto the observation is like a uniform distribution, but it is not because I know that this is the distribution but because when I ask about the distribution itself, this is the philosophical default. The lack of knowledge is expressed in the assumption of a uniform distribution. Think of a coin about which you have no information (whether it is symmetrical or not). You have to bet on which side it will fall (otherwise you are killed). What probability would you give the tree? I assume 50%. Not because you have any information about the coin (because you don't). But precisely because you don't. In the absence of information, you attribute equal probability to each outcome. The fine-tuning argument only says that our world is special. That is a fact. From here on out, the question is philosophical, what is the meaning of this uniqueness. Who created it and whether or not it could have been created by chance. Your argument is similar to the following argument: I see something very special and unusual, and I wonder how it happened. You answer: It happened completely by chance. I say that it is unlikely that chance would create something so special. You answer me: This chance is governed by a distribution according to which the chance of the special thing being created is 1 and all the rest is 0 (the density of a delta function over this case). Now I ask: So who created this distribution (and through it the special thing)? After all, whoever determines that the distribution will be delta has essentially determined the outcome in this way. When you talk about the distribution, you are only describing the way in which this creator created the special product. It is not an alternative explanation for the existence of a creator. In passing, I cannot resist the following remark. Your disclosure is very strange to me. Usually, due disclosure is to remove the lips of others or to put on the table any biases that the writer may have. And even then, this is only if he brings information to me that is not accessible to me, in which case I must believe him. In such a case, he must give due disclosure if he has any bearing on the matter so that I know that I should be suspicious of the information. For example, if someone tells me that so-and-so is corrupt. But he himself is competing against him in a tender or for some position, of course he must give me due disclosure when he gives me the information so that I know to treat the information he presents with suspicion. But if he has evidence that I can examine that so-and-so is corrupt, there is no relevance to his due disclosure. No matter who he is and what his relationship is to the person in question, the evidence speaks for itself. To the same extent, when a person makes a philosophical or other argument that can be examined on its own merits, there is no relevance to due disclosure. It does not matter who and what you are, as long as anyone can examine the argument and form a position on it. Even if you are a shoemaker, your mathematical argument can be Excellent, and even if you are a physicist from NASA, your argument can be wrong (as is indeed the case here, in my opinion). The argument stands on its own and everyone will examine it and decide what they think. The full disclosure here does the opposite: instead of preventing biases, it tries to create them. The naive reader who does not understand the concepts you used is supposed to accept the claim that you are a physicist from NASA. In other words, you are trying to bias the readers' minds, and yet you call it 'full disclosure.' Strange.