"What I do care about is trying in my own way to understand why I exist."
I hope you'll find the the answer soon, wafflehead. And please share it with me if/when you find it.
The hypothesis of multiverse is presented only as a logical possibility to counter the argument that this universe is so fine-tuned that it is improbable to have been accidental. It is true that it is only a speculation that there is actually multiverse. But it is also only a speculation that this universe has been (intentionally) designed.
"And I do not conclude that I am here by accident, well not me precisely, but sentient beings and a universe with habitable zones, and natural laws that work precisely that have limits."
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning goes like this: It just seems implausibly improbable that it is a matter of chance that so many things could be exactly what they need to be for life to exist in the universe. Therefore, it is more probable to think that an intelligent agent deliberately designed the universe to be hospitable to life.
But here is how Kenneth Einar Himma refutes such an argument:
"The mere fact that it is enormously improbable that an event occurred by chance, by itself, gives us no reason to think that it occurred by design. Suppose we flip a fair coin 1000 times and record the results in succession. The probability of getting the particular outcome is vanishingly small: 1 in 21000 [ie. 2 to the exponent of 1000] to be precise. But it is clear that the mere fact that such a sequence is so improbable, by itself, does not give us any reason to think that it was the result of intelligent design. As intuitively tempting as it may be to conclude from just the apparent improbability of a fine-tuned universe that it is the result of divine agency, the inference is unsound."
https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/#SH2c"That is the greatest act of faith, to imagine nothing doing all this because this was the lucky universe amongst infinite universes."
No, there is no faith involved in sticking to the available evidence and not adding anything from beyond. The greatest act of faith is to add something beyond the evidence and believe it to be the intelligent force which does it all.
"The atomic composition of DNA seems to read the needs of the entire organism."
Yes, it seems to read the needs. But it doesn't. If I understand it correctly, mutations occur randomly. A certain mutation that happens to be beneficial to the organism living in a changing environment will be passed on to the next generation because this organism can survive in that environment. Other mutations that are not beneficial will disappear because the organism with these mutations cannot survive.
If DNA can read the needs of the organism, then there wouldn't be any species to be extinct.
"A third process
may also exist and that is what rolls out complexity leading to a sentient, conscious being able to manipulate nature, explore the universe and understand its nature and recognise that there is a Cause for their existence"
I notice you write "may also exist". So you are speculating there. That is fine. But as far as I know, if we believe in the evolution theory, there is nothing magical in the emergence of consciousness. Consciousness and mind are no more than "by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist."
And what do you mean by "a Cause" in your assertion "recognise that there is a Cause for their existence"? Do you mean the reason for their existence or the cause that made them exist? Or both?
The first cause that made us exist is obviously some couples had sex. But the (true) reason for our existence is I think mystery.
