According to Leonard Susskind the "finetuning" of the constants of this universe is evidence of many universes with different random constants. The most remarkable of the constants he says is the energy of empty space because of its tiny size (10^113 J/m) and the fact that we couldn't live without it being this very close to this tiny size. First of all I don't see that the size or any size is special for what we at the moment must assume is a fundamental constant of nature. To be able to say that one value is more remarkable than another we must know the probability distribution for whatever caused the value. Not only do we not know this distribution, we do not even know if one exists. The second part of the argument for a multiverse is that if the fundamental constants changed much we wouldn't exists. A possible explanation to why we do in fact exist is then seen as the possibility that many universes exists, but people are only here to observe it in the ones with the right conditions for them to live (Anthropic principle). This principle in my opinion can only be used to explain why the sample (this universe) of a population (all existing universes) could be non representative of the population. It cannot be used to determine the size or the nature of the population. The population size could still be 1. If there was only one universe and we didn't exist in it we wouldn't know about it. Now if only one universe exist and we live in it, we cant just assume that it is special. And if the constants of a universe are only special if there is someone to inquire about them, would this universe still be special if humans hadn't evolved?