User blog comment:A.J AL/Where does Death fit in?/@comment-109.66.36.57-20160528133306/@comment-26992577-20160528213345

In the end you have to have a set of equations to derivate all phenomena in nature. We don't have this yet, but if we have, the question remains "Why this equations and not others ?". In the set of all the possible worlds math can describe (which are basically limitless), our universe owuld be included (likely even infinite times, as the many worlds theory is a subtheory of MUH).

''Ontological arguments don't make for good arguments. You can't define things into existence. So, yes, you could say that logic is a system of definitions (they're still based upon observations, FYI, since it is impossible for us to conceive of something we have not, at least in part, experienced or witnessed), but then you'd have to throw it out the window as unreliable.''

It is far from ontology. It's just math applied reality, one of the main motivations is to solve the fine tuning problem. Again, logic is the manipulation of symbols which only gains semantic through interpretation by models. Is 2 + 3 = 6 true ? Logic does not answer the question, the statement "2 + 3 = 6" is syntactically true (It fits the grammar of mathematics), but semantically false (You can't find a model which fits the sentence - only odd ones commonly not used).

Either way, you can't explain why for example the Schroedinger equation (Which is basically an axiom in QM and can therefore not be derivated formally) has exactly the form it has and not for example further terms. The equation fits reality as it matches our observations. But it is from a statistical point of view unlikely that this equation and others would exactly take on the form, which allows life to develop. If you would increase the Gravitational constant just a bit, there would be no life in the universe (Or at least a very different form of life).