In many worlds, everything happens, but not everything happens with equal “probability”. Less miraculous paths towards life are more likely than more miraculous paths towards life. Thus, even if the life sees itself with probability 100%, it most likely sees itself evolved the least miraculous way.
So, at the end, we are in the same situation as we were before considering many worlds: looking for the most likely way life could have evolved, because that is most likely our history.
(In other words, many worlds do introduce miracles, but they still favor the solutions that didn’t use them.)
In many worlds, everything happens, but not everything happens with equal “probability”. Less miraculous paths towards life are more likely than more miraculous paths towards life. Thus, even if the life sees itself with probability 100%, it most likely sees itself evolved the least miraculous way.
So, at the end, we are in the same situation as we were before considering many worlds: looking for the most likely way life could have evolved, because that is most likely our history.
(In other words, many worlds do introduce miracles, but they still favor the solutions that didn’t use them.)
that’s what i thought but I was wondering why this is not used as a counter to theistic proof from abiogenesis
Theistic proof from abiogenesis just passes the buck of improbability from abiogenesis to the existence of God that wills abiogenesis to happen.
Invoking many worlds here will do more harm than good. Next thing we will have theistic proof from many worlds.