Philosophical debate

[Scytale]

OK, so what do you think about this:

I submit to you that if anything were to pop in Existence suddently, it would have no preffered structure, composition or residual information. A Universe such as ours would not just Exist, because then it would beg the question "why like this, and not in any other way". Consequently, let's admit that the only acceptable form of existence would be a Multiverse with no particular laws and structure, governed by pure chaos and chance. (1)

Now, let's correctly apply anthropic reasoning (I think it's called the reverse-anthropic principle). We find ourselves in a submanifold of this Multiverse, which shows some structure and some residual (inherent) information (such as the basic fundamental laws of physics, which are still mostly obscure to us, time, enthropy etc), because without this we would not be here to observe this in the first place. So it is acceptable for our Universe to show some structure and obey some laws, as opposed to pure chaos. (2)

Furthermore, if we rely on pure chaos, we cannot asume a priori that our Universe is in anyway isotropic in space and time (the scientific method, and thus physics, postulates this, but will probably never be able to prove it). We might as well exist in a Universe where the laws of physics change suddently in the next nanosecond/nanometer in my spacetime vicinity, although they've held for billions of years/megaparsecs. (3)

Here's the catch: by applying anthropic reasoning (2) this way, it is only necessary for residual laws and information to exist in my past space-time hypercone (so that I can exist and observe at this point in time and space). It is not necessary for these laws to hold in my future space-time hypercone. From (1) and (3) I infer that the probability of the Universe maintaining its isotropy and its structure in a vicinity of mine in the future space-time cone is 0+ (if its underlying structure is governed by pure chaos and probability, any law of physics can turn in any way, even though they've been stable until now there is no a priori constraint on them to remain stable, i.e. the gravitational constant at my location can take any value in the continuum of functions restricted to constant until now, from now on, to give a simple example).

And yet, the universe remains stable. Which either brings me on theist grounds, or there is something awfully wrong with my argumentation.

A little help please?

[Chuft-Captain]

"I am", therefore... "it is".

At some future time, "it isn't", therefore... "I aint".

[selden]

I doubt that there are many people here who would be able to understand your argument.
I suspect that you'd get better responses on the BAUT Q&A forum.
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronom ... s-answers/