>>77
I see it.
You can't see what is around your back right now, nor can you hear what is happening in the Earth's core. Your sensory input is quite limited each time, but you can put together a model of the world and from there you can reason. You lack information about the existence of most things, you rely on information provided in other ways to infer their existence. The same way I infer that if an universe has very specific laws then it's very likely that other universes with other specific laws will exist, I don't think the number of such universes is finite as one can always amend the laws in various ways (for example, you could try defining each as one Turing Machine and you can enumerate them all like natural numbers, however the number of all such machines is infinite, like natural numbers).
I don't see what the point of linking to Pascal's Wager, believing in a ``God'' is silly because the probability of our universe being ``ruled'' by one is low and there is no physical evidence to support it, however as sad as I find it, the possibility for such a ``God'''s existence cannot be fully ruled out, except when it's not logically possible (but you cannot rule out that someone is living in some upper universe, simulating yours and will not extract the patterns in your synapses, emulate them and decide to give you a paradise or torture you depending on some arbitrary rules, but then one cannot rule out that another universe exists with a ``God'' with completly complemetary rules to the other, in which case, regardless of what you do, you will experience both ``Heaven'' and ``Hell''). In the end all this is pointless to argue about and the best way to live one's life is to not care wether any such being exists or can exist and thus Pascal's Wager is not a compelling argument for me.
Please, stop seeing invisible pink unicorns.
Where did I claim to see any such thing? The only thing that I did was make an inference. Let me illustrate it in another example:
You are put in a prison cell and have an arbitrarily large number written on it. You may infer that that could be your prisoner number/identifier. You may infer that other prisoners are likely to exist (or have existed) without actually seeing them. This is not strong evidence, but a good enough suggestion.
There is one way to prove the Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis right or wrong through a scientific test, but we that live in this universe cannot ever know the result of that test (but others may and could even use this result to their advantage). I could elaborate on this further if you're interested.