  Even when completely and consistently formulated, a fundamental theory of
physics and cosmological boundary conditions may not give unambiguous and
unique predictions for the universe we observe; indeed inflation, string/M
theory, and quantum cosmology all arguably suggest that we can observe only one
member of an ensemble with diverse properties. How, then, can such theories be
tested? It has been variously asserted that in a future measurement we should
observe the a priori most probable set of predicted properties (the
``bottom-up'' approach), or the most probable set compatible with all current
observations (the ``top-down'' approach), or the most probable set consistent
with the existence of observers (the ``anthropic'' approach). These inhabit a
spectrum of levels of conditionalization and can lead to qualitatively
different predictions. For example, in a context in which the densities of
various species of dark matter vary among members of an ensemble of otherwise
similar regions, from the top-down or anthropic viewpoints -- but not the
bottom-up -- it would be natural for us to observe multiple types of dark
matter with similar contributions to the observed dark matter density. In the
anthropic approach it is also possible in principle to strengthen this argument
and the limit the number of likely dark matter sub-components. In both cases
the argument may be extendible to dark energy or primordial density
perturbations. This implies that the anthropic approach to cosmology,
introduced in part to explain "coincidences" between unrelated constituents of
our universe, predicts that more, as-yet-unobserved coincidences should come to
light.
