I don’t see how the size of the universe makes any difference—isn’t it only the density of weird events that matters?
Unless the hypothesis under consideration is a particularly weird universe, the main way to get more weird events is to get more total events.
But if you get more weird events and more total events, the probability of a given event being weird remains constant.
If it worked the way you said, you could also conclude a large universe based on normal events. This would violate conservation of expected evidence.
I don’t see how the size of the universe makes any difference—isn’t it only the density of weird events that matters?
Unless the hypothesis under consideration is a particularly weird universe, the main way to get more weird events is to get more total events.
But if you get more weird events and more total events, the probability of a given event being weird remains constant.
If it worked the way you said, you could also conclude a large universe based on normal events. This would violate conservation of expected evidence.