Quote" The standard model of particle physics and the standard model of cosmology are both rife with numerical parameters that must have values fixed by hand to explain the observed world. The world would be a radically different place if some of these constants took a different value. In particular, it has been argued that if any one of six (or perhaps
a few more) numbers did not have rather particular values, then life as we know it would not be possible [1]: atoms would not exist, or no gravitationally bound structures would form in the universe, or some other calamity would occur that would appear to make the (alter)-universe a very dull and lifeless place.

Following are the 4 possible explanations ...

(i) We just got very lucky: all of the numbers could have been very different, in which case the universe would have been barren – but they just happened by pure chance to take values in the tiny part of parameter space that would allow life. We owe our existence to one very, very, very lucky roll of the dice.

(ii) We weren’t particularly lucky: almost any set of parameters would have been fine, because life would find a way to arise in nearly any type of universe. This is quite interesting because it implies (at least theoretically) the existence of life forms radically different from our own, existing for example in universes with no atoms or with no bound structure, or overrun with black holes, etc.

(iii) The universe was specifically designed for life. The choice of constants only happened once, but their values were determined in some way by the need for us to arise. This might be divine agency, or some radical form of Wheeler’s “self-creating universe”, or super-advanced beings that travel back in time to set the constants at the beginning of the universe, etc. However the reader feels about this
possibility, they must admit that it would be interesting if true.

(iv) We did not have to get lucky, because there are many universes with different sets of constants – i.e., the dice were rolled many, many times. We are necessarily in one of the universes that allows life, just as we necessarily reside on a planet that supports life, even when most others may not. This is interesting because it means that there are other very different universes coexisting with ours in a “multiverse”.

These four answers – luck, elan vital, design, and multiverse – will appeal at different levels to different readers. But I think it is hard to argue that the multiverse is necessarily less reasonable than the alternatives." /Quote

So what are YOUR favorite explanations? I don't buy i or ii at all. My fav is iv with iii as a 2nd fav. I believe that we do exist in a multiverse, one more complex than even hinted at here.

-p (hey, will that belief get me a date with L?)