In terms of what we see in the night sky, are we a statistical anomaly compared to the average star system?
The night sky:
Earth's moon might also be a bit unusual.
Other than that:
We've got one star (say, as opposed to two). I'm not sure what the threshold for statistical anomaly is, but it's less common. I'm also not sure how common planets orbiting a star, as opposed to not having planets is.
It's also unusual that our moon is just the right size that, during a solar eclipse, we can see the solar corona. If the moon were much bigger, the corona would be obscured, and if it were smaller, too much of the rest of the sun would be visible for us to look at it.
And it is also temporary: Over the course of millions of years the moon is slowly moving away from Earth: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119
In terms of what we see in the night sky, are we a statistical anomaly compared to the average star system? That is, what percentage of stars with potentially habitable planets exist close enough to other stars to see a significant number of them in the night sky, have a mostly unimpeded view of other galaxies beyond their own, and aren’t in any sort of “cosmic fog” (inside a nebula, etc.) unable to see much of anything? Would that percentage be different if we included uninhabitable star systems? What about if we included all star systems from the beginning to the “end” of the universe (aka the point at which no more stars are being produced, for the purpose of this question), not just the universe as it is today?
I’m not sure how important it is that these questions be answered, but I would definitely be interested if it turns out that our view of the heavens is a statistically unlikely one. My guess would be that we’re experiencing one of the more common views of the universe, but I could imagine it being possible that most habitable planets are likely to exist at a time when views of other galaxies are not available. If so—especially if our view is remarkably unlikely—what would the implications of that be?