Universes. Is one a sign of others?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems, "we dont know if there are any other things like this" is the position we're in prior to observing one ( we just imagined one with a "I wonder if it's possible" thought).

Having observed one, doesn't that increase the chance there are two or more compared to the pre-observation chance when we had observed zero?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been mulling this over and it still seems to me that yes the chance has increased when dealing with physical entities in our universe - but that's because we understand that physical laws have produced whatever-it-is and we anticipate they will act the same in the future and acted the same in the past. I dont think we are justified in inferring this if we dont have knowledge of the universe the entity is embedded in.

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to observing one we would only have justification for believing A's were more likely than B's to exist if we had some idea about causation. Given equal ignorance of causation, once we observe one A, that is an argument in favor of other A's that imagined B doesn't have for B's.

I seem to operate on some "Uniqueness is very unique" viewpoint and can't shake the notion that observing an A raises "what would prevent another A from existing now we know they are possible". B seems to have " perhaps they are impossible to form" going against it which A has now escaped. That seems significant to me and more trivial to you ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Not trivial, no. Again I agree completely with the inference if we are talking about things occurring within our universe. I'm talking in circles now, but I question whether the inference is justified without some knowledge of how universe(s) come to be.

I dont really have much to say - as I mentioned before I dont think the inference is sensible in a completely random and chaotic universe. I wouldnt feel compelled to move either way until I knew more about how the universe came about.