A respond to Migkillertwo

In fact I specifically stated that I "was NOT ruling out the possibility of multiple universe" and made the observation that we cannot know if this is actually the case without supporting evidence.

And my point, which you appear to have missed, is that in demanding we first 'know' you are in practice ruling out considering it a possibility. Are you not arguing that unless you can demonstrate something it's irrelevant?

Any dingbat can come up with logically non-contradictory ideas, but this does not automatically make them a reality – something you have do not seem to be able to grasp.

Again – we don't need to know that other possibilities are actually realised, we simply acknowledge that it could have been different. I have more respect for the physicists who posit the other possibilities to call them dingbats.

Sorry – the burden of proof is on those making the claims. I expect you already know this, or simply don't care.

Which claim did I make? That the universe might have been otherwise? Do I really need to you point to the work of the physicists who recognise this?

Now you are contradicting your earlier statement "we don't need to 'know' that they can to consider it possible" – implying I think it is impossible.

No, no contradiction, for what I wrote earlier was the same point I was making here. Whether you think it impossible is actually beside the point – you appear to be treating it as so (as dismissively irrelevant) until shown that another different universe can be examined.

Nevertheless, if we cannot distinguish the possibility from nothing at all, then who what relevance does it have? Seriously?

You seem to be getting tangled up in ontology still. Just because you haven't seen a realisation of any possibilities is no reason to discard them as possibilities.

Please point to a single sentence, tweet, of video where I have said anything remotely close to that.

This video @ 2:37

Bzzzzt. Wrong, and this is your (and many others) fatal mistake. Once you roll the die you cannot do that particular roll again. Ever. It's done. The result is known and fixed. No quantity of future rolls will ever change the result of that trial. Probabilities only work into the future – the past is set and fixed.

Of course no future rolls will change the actual result – but the odds for that roll are not changed simply because it's happened – the 1 of it having happened is still in 6 as it could just as easily have been any of the six numbers – if it was chance. The ONLY way to avoid this is to posit that it landed on 6 necessarily. It all comes back to necessity, and you're ignoring that.

Btw, I forget if you ever told me what you're degree is in – are you a mathematician? I only ask, as I am not, but I did speak to one this week, and he told the me that the probability of a chance event like rolling a die is the same before, during and after the event -so who am I to believe? – that's not a fallacious appeal to authority either – it's a legitimate one. He could be wrong,after all (however his argument makes more logical sense than yours does, to my mind). That an event happened is not to say it had to happen that way – unless you are a strict determinist?

(I really must finish my post of determinism)

From what I read here, you'll be arguing for it I gather?

Also, I am surprised by your assertion I am required to prove a negative,

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to demonstrate that the universe is necessary and not contingent, as this is the only way you can call other possibilities irrelevant and calculate the posterior probability of 1/1.