[benlivengood]

In this particular case you would only have to push back the lack of meaning to the ~multiverse or whatever a sequence/family of child universes would be called.

I don't think Tegmark <IV had any simple parameters for goodness or meaning, and neither does logic or mathematics. We assemble our meanings out of more fundamental relationships but I actually think they concretely exist in a real way as real as the matter in this universe, but more in the way that galaxies and other complex structures exist. Meaning is a property of complex self-reflective systems and so inherent meaning will probably always be tied inexorably to context and environment, or in our case meaning is tied specifically to our human nature.

E.g. I will find it fascinating if universes do evolve from progenitor universes and therefore the guiding selection pressure is "make more black holes/universes" but that isn't the same thing as the human concept of "good" since our nature isn't aligned with entire (families of) universes.

[nathan_compton]

But, speaking precisely, there is no human nature at all. You and I have nothing fundamentally in common except that our atoms happen to be organized in a similar way. We have no nature in common except as a coincidence.

It is a coincidence that delights me and I happen to feel quite a lot bonhomie for my fellow human beings and lifeforms, but I don't see how it makes life meaningful in any universal sense.

[benlivengood]

Do you consider the relationship of two molecules of water to be similarly coincidental or along a continuum from e.g. the nature of two elections all the way to how two universes might be similar? I figure fundamental particle nature is less coincidental than human nature, which is correspondingly less coincidentally related than two heterogenous dust clouds.

[nathan_compton]

I don't see any reason to have a strong belief about why any fundamental constants are what they are. This is so far beyond what even our best physics can say anything meaningful about that I feel an obligation to studiously have no opinion about it.

I will say that I see no compelling reason to believe that the values of fundamental constants are NOT just random.