Not in the way sthitapragya was using it - from the other end. Read the argument like this:Since any system in terms of life or biology is only very partly described, truncated and provisional, while no true comparison possible with other systems of similar scope or scale, any remark about it being efficient or not becomes meaningless in itself.
"All purposeful systems with which I am familiar strive for efficiency. All the systems I know operate within the universe.
Every component in the purposeful systems I know has an assigned purpose, which it is able to fulfill.
To design components that do not know what their purpose is; that spin uselessly and wear out without ever performing their task, would be wasteful. The design of such a universe would be inefficient.
That notion contradicts what I have observed about purposeful designers.
It would also negate the assigned purpose of the components that fail because they don't know what they're supposed to do.
I am a component in the universe. I have not been told my assigned function. I see many, many other components who have not been told.
Therefore, I conclude that the universe does not have a designer; that it is not a purposeful system. "
Looking for efficiency and basing his conclusion on that factor, made sense to sthitapragya.
You have another approach to probability.
But how we arrive at a purpose, meaning or whatever "in the universe", whether we perceive or conceive of the universe as being purposeful or purposeless, is by the same process: choosing. Whether we base our choice on mathematical formula, rolling dice, connecting dots in the night sky, trying to reason it out or listening to folk tales doesn't make all that much difference. We still choose.