This is similar to the anthropic principle, where we can make certain claims by looking at the conclusion: our existence.
We can see that our universe is huge and therefore rare. A smaller universe would be a more likely occurrence than a large one such as ours. (We don't have to know the absolute rarity of universe creation to know the relative rarity of other universes in relation to our universe's size: smaller universes are created more often than larger universes.)
My question is about an implication of this anthropic argument: if our universe is so rare, and if smaller universes occur an absurdly larger number of times than universes such as ours do, then why didn't our sapience occur in a more common, smaller, universe? There would be way more chances for sapience to occur so, all else being equal, we'd expect to be in one of those more likely universes.
Yet here we are, in an absurdly unlikely (almost infinitely rare) universe. This either means this is the only universe, OR it means sapience is so rare that it requires such a rare universe to occur as a prerequisite.
Sapience cannot occur in a more common universe because even if the chance of sapience was above 0, the sapiences in common universes would vastly outnumber our sapience in a rare universe and thus our existence would most likely have to have occurred in one of those common universes. This would imply something else: that we're alone in this observable section of our infinitely-rare universe and will never meet sapient aliens!
Since sapience is so rare as to require an infinitely-rare universe, sapience cannot be said to occur more than once in any reasonable region of the universe because if it could have, then we would have most likely occurred in a more reasonable universe to begin with.
Since this still leaves room for this being the only universe, the chance of there being no sapient aliens within a reasonable distance from us is 50%, right?