>>13458928No, I critique you from the position of pure logic. You begged the question. Your statement was
>A is a set of functions in the domain B. (E.g. gravity, laws of nature...)>for B to be consistent, it needs to correspond to B_1 (our universe)>the definition of B_1 is a B that includes A>i.e. therefore, A was bound to happen/B_1 was the only optionClassic circularity.
Yet the dilemma is: why does B have the form it has in the first place? Alternate universes are imaginable where there are only nuclear etc. forces. You wouldn't get galaxies, but to am observer in that universe, galaxies, gravity effects and macro-structures would not be inherent properties of their domain.
Likewise, we can imagine a universe that has large scale structure vastly larger than our universe, with a respective force that our universe lacks.
Yet across the meta-domain of B and above alternate universes, no such rule per se exists that containing domains require the output of the functions of A to correspond to some morphology, i.e. here large-scale structure that would result in galaxies etc. And IF that rule exists, it is significant and the actual target of investigation.
