[deleted]
Rob,
"Regarding "Who says "life" is necessarily defined by your narrow biological parameters?", Apparently you do. No one else, including me, has ever mentioned such things."
Huh?!! Then you are obligated to say what you DO mean by "life." I have given you my definition.
"You continue to ignore the distinction between *a priori* and *a posteriori* probabilities. There is a reason why they do not allow people to bet on a horse race, after the race has been run. The same reason applies to the fine-tuning-multiverse hypothesis; "Predicting" that life will occur, after it *has* occurred, wins no great prize for logic."
Strawman after strawman. You fail to understand that there there *is* no a posteriori probability for life occuring. The existence of life is trivial, as is your argument.
I said "Regarding 'One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability given the 1.0 probability of 'life' in the observed universe."
You replied, "That is what I have been saying all along; 'One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability", *a priori*. Are you now conceding that I am correct?'"
Holy crap. Do you know anything about probability? *You* are the one imagining the false dichotomy of "life--no-life." Because the probability of life in *our* universe is 100% does not imply that there are no universes incapable of sustaining life. Instead of rigging the odds based on your personal belief in the excluded middle to a binary choice of 0 or 1, consider that objectively there are universes sustaining on a continuum of 1 (life, i.e., the presence of self aware organisms) to 0 (no presence of self aware organisms). Three-valued (two endpoints and a middle).
"And that the advocates of the multiverse hypothesis are wrong, since that is precisely what they do posit?"
Rob, you apparently do not grasp the many-worlds or multiverse hypotheses. One has to understand first the principles of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics before making a valid argument against these interpretations. You started out thinking that it is so easy to refute the hypotheses that your base knowledge of statistic is enouogh. You found out that it isn't. So you turned to your philosophical prejudices where your arguments, to the extent that they are coherent at all, are trivial.
Tom