Well, I explained that any chance hypothesis (including multiverse hypothesis) fails because any chance hypothesis would lead to the conclusion that “likely you are a Boltzmann Brain”
But I don't accept that conclusion. I think the likeliest explanation for the appearance of fine tuning is a multiverse hypothesis, but there are other naturalistic possibilities such as universes breaking symmetry in a way that favors or compels such physical constants the way that boulders roll downhill, seeking some kind of lowest energy state.
you didn’t seem to object to that claim
I didn't realize that you expected me say more than that the idea seems logically possible, and if it is the case, it's not a problem.
all I got was that quote (above) To me that sounds that you are admitting that likely you are a Boltzmann Brain.
But I told you that that is NOT my opinion, meaning either I miswrote or you misread.
If you disagree on that you are a BB , and you insist in chance hypothesis (like the multiverse), then your only option is to provide an alternative “chance hypothesis” that would avoid the BB Paradox
No, I don't say that I'm not a Boltzmann brain, I don't insist on any hypothesis, and I've already given you alternate hypotheses including yet another a few sentences above this one.
Once again, I really don't know what we're discussing or why.
Do you think that:
1 an unknown natural mechanism wrote a note with meaningful words and sentences
Is better than
2 some god wrote a note with meaningful words and sentences
Yes. Maybe you mean something different than I do by "unknown natural mechanism."
And what note? Did you want to add that a note was found in the home where the dog went missing? OK. The unknown natural mechanism could be that a neighbor wrote it and left it there, which seems more likely that an Odin hypothesis.
I agree on that we must accept the most parsimonious hypothesis as the best hypothesis, but this doesn’t mean that it is correct
Did I just see a light bulb incandesce over your head? I think you had your Eliza Doolittle or Helen Keller epiphany. Yes, that is exactly correct. The parsimony principle like all razors gives a method for ordering hypothesis, not ruling any in or out. The following is from an old RF post, which might be illuminating to you about what razors are and do:
And yes, razors don't tell us what the truth is, just how to order our possibilities in terms of likelihood. All plausible naturalistic explanations like abiogenesis, for example, are preferred over all supernaturalistic explanations simply because they do it without gods, a huge presumption (unnecessary complexity) with no additional explanatory power.
There are a few of these pieces of advice that help us order our lists of candidate hypothesis in terms of likelihood. Hitchen's Razor is well known - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Clearly, that doesn't mean that the claim is untrue, just not worth believing, and unless the truth is important, not even worth fact checking, since most such claims don't bear scrutiny. And Sagan has a similar razor - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
We have an implied razor from Popper with his principle of scientific statements needing to be falsifiable. Implied is that investigating them for truth content is time wasted.
There are a few quaint ones. Hanlon’s razor says to, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." I don't actually agree with that one, but it's a razor nevertheless, since it wants to order logical possibilities and put answers requiring only stupidity over those requiring malice. I think that malice and conspiracy are both much more common than is suspected, which is why so many people get conned and gaslighted, but that's not relevant to what a razor is.
Also, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ..." it's a duck until one has reason to think otherwise. Put duck at the top of your list when one sees that, not robot or hallucination or bunny dressed up like a duck. The others are possible, but less likely, and should not be seriously considered before having a reason to believe it's not a duck.
We had one when I was in medical school - "If you hear hooves clopping, think horse, not zebra." This was advice to pursue common diagnoses first all things being equal.
The common thread to all of these is not to say what is true or not, but what is tentatively the preferred explanation until it is no longer adequate to account for all relevant observation.
