deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 0919e6f..45be6d9 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
Besides the \ghilimele{finite description for a non-zero fraction of the observable universe} property, we can look at some of the properties of our universe like having the same forces acting through the entire space, for all moments in time. It is harder to give a mathematical proof that these are zero-probability ones, but if we think that given a set of universes having these properties, sharing the same mathematical space (e.g. $\reale^3$) and having at least two distinct elements, one can slice and recombine them in infinite ways, it is likely that these properties are also zero-probability ones. An example of such a combined possible universe is the one with infinite planets on a line mentioned above. In other words, the cosmological principle is (very) likely to be a zero-probability property. Similarly, if we take the rules for how the universe works as we perceive them, most likely there is a zero chance that they would apply through the entire universe and a very low chance that they would apply outside of earth / our solar system.  In other words, if our world is not designed, there is a good chance that we may know a lot about what happens on Earth, maybe something about what happens in our solar system, we almost surely don't know what happens in our galaxy and outside of it. Also, we have a good chance of knowing how the world works now and in the near past and future, but we probably don't know what were the physical laws in the distant past or how they will be in the distant future. [TODO: put this below and link it to the conclusion.] \section{Conclusion}  From The strongest conclusion of this argument is that, from the hypothesis that  theabove, we have two options. Either our  universe is designed not created  andthen we might be able to make predictions for  a non-trivial part of the universe we few basic mathematical properties one  can observe (assuming predict, with $100\%$ certainty,  that we have enough details about the state can't know how a non-zero fraction  of the universe), or the observable part of our  universe is not designed and then, although we can make predictions works,  for a small part many reasonable definitions  of the universe, \ghilimele{fraction}. Either  we can't make predictions outside of it, no matter how much information about apply any scientific theory to  the state distant past, future, or to distant places (e.g. most  of the universe we would have; also, this small part astronomy  would become just a joke), and we will never  be an insignificant fraction able to do that, or one  of what we could observe. the starting axioms must be false. I'm not betting on either astronomy being a joke or the mathematical statements being false.  We seem to be able to make predictions for mostly everything In other words, if our world is not designed, there is a good chance  that we may know a lot about what happens on Earth, maybe something about what happens in our solar system, we almost surely don't know what happens in our galaxy and outside of it and we will never know a non-trivial part of what we  can observe, even if observe. Also,  wemay not be able to make many predictions for very distant things. We also  have no sign that the laws a good chance  of knowing how  the universe would be significantly different outside of Earth, so it seems that world works now and in  the limiting factor is that near past and future, but  we probably  don't know what were  the state of the universe. Then physical laws in  the second option is probably false and distant past or how they will be in  the first one is probably true. distant future.  [TODO: Make sure I'm using quotes correctly and consistently.]  [TODO: Fix spaces between math mode and punctuation.] 
...
[TODO: Think a bit more about the fact that even statistically we can't model more than $0$].  [TODO: How can we observe the universe without having uniforme laws?]  [TODO: define "mathematical prediction" or something like that and use it here, since I have two meanings of prediction - I think this is done/not needed, I added a footnote in the only place where I use the normal meaning of prediction. I have to check. Maybe I should be more explicit about this.  [TODO: Say that, from the hypothesis that the universe is not created and a few basic mathematical properties one can predict, with full certainty, that we can't know how a non-zero fraction of the observable part of our universe works, for many definitions of \ghilimele{fraction}. Either we can't apply any scientific theory to the distant past, future, or to distant places, and we will never be able to do that, or one of the starting axioms must be false, and I'm not betting on the mathematical statements being false.]  [TODO: use this as a motto: "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." (4) Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (New York: BasicBooks, 1998), 43. - citat pe http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html]  [TODO: De citit What's So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza]  [TODO: Put an e-mail address in the footnote in the introduction.]