Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Multiverse And Fine-Tuning

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:39:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

Hmm. I wrote something else about it, but now I can't find it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.

I think you're missing the thrust of my question. I didn't ask the question as a challenge to people who subscribe to mutliverse theories. I wasn't implying anything like an argument against the multi-verse theory by suggesting that if it were true, we should expect the constants to vary within universes. So whether it's surprising or not isn't relevant to my question. I asked the question out of curiosity. It's a genuine question. Assuming the constants are contingent, I want to know why the constants would differ from universe to universe, but not differ within universes.

If you mean to say that maybe in some universes they do vary within that universe, but they just happen not to vary within ours, then that answers my question.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the best answer to fine-tuning is that we don't know enough about reality to draw probabilities like that. Imagine you are blindfolded and someone puts a 6 sides die in your hand, you roll it, and the person says "You got a 1, what were the odds of that?". You would say "1 in 6 of course, the odds were against me, but I still got it!", then the person says "Take off the blindfold!" and you look, and there is a 1 on every side...

We are blindfolded (we don't know everything about nature). There could be some metaphysical, or physical reason why the constants are the way they are. I mean, we are closing fine-tuning all the time. Nobel Prize winner Steven Wienberg actually showed why the cosmological constant has the value it has.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 1:34:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.

I think you're missing the thrust of my question. I didn't ask the question as a challenge to people who subscribe to mutliverse theories. I wasn't implying anything like an argument against the multi-verse theory by suggesting that if it were true, we should expect the constants to vary within universes. So whether it's surprising or not isn't relevant to my question. I asked the question out of curiosity. It's a genuine question. Assuming the constants are contingent, I want to know why the constants would differ from universe to universe, but not differ within universes.

If you mean to say that maybe in some universes they do vary within that universe, but they just happen not to vary within ours, then that answers my question.

Yes, that was essentially the point I was making.

I read your article, and I used to think that the multiverse is ad hoc (as an intelligent fine-tuner seems more natural of an explanation). For this reason, I didn't used to think it was a good answer to fine-tuning. Then I realized that the multiverse theory doesn't exist to "get around" the fine-tuning problem, it is there as its existence cashes out from the math of some of our best theories (inflation, loop quantum gravity, superstring theory ect..). Thus, since the idea of a multiverse has nothing to do with fine-tuning; its not ad hoc. It is just a perfectly natural solution, as its existence is implied by modern cosmology separately from the fine-tuning issue.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:46:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 1:34:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.

I think you're missing the thrust of my question. I didn't ask the question as a challenge to people who subscribe to mutliverse theories. I wasn't implying anything like an argument against the multi-verse theory by suggesting that if it were true, we should expect the constants to vary within universes. So whether it's surprising or not isn't relevant to my question. I asked the question out of curiosity. It's a genuine question. Assuming the constants are contingent, I want to know why the constants would differ from universe to universe, but not differ within universes.

If you mean to say that maybe in some universes they do vary within that universe, but they just happen not to vary within ours, then that answers my question.

(I know you didn't say in your article that the multiverse was ad hoc, I wasn't arguing in my last post, just expanding).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 1:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the multiverse didn't cash out from modern cosmology, and was just used a theory to get around fine-tuning; I would reject it as an answer to fine-tuning.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 1:45:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:34:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.

I think you're missing the thrust of my question. I didn't ask the question as a challenge to people who subscribe to mutliverse theories. I wasn't implying anything like an argument against the multi-verse theory by suggesting that if it were true, we should expect the constants to vary within universes. So whether it's surprising or not isn't relevant to my question. I asked the question out of curiosity. It's a genuine question. Assuming the constants are contingent, I want to know why the constants would differ from universe to universe, but not differ within universes.

If you mean to say that maybe in some universes they do vary within that universe, but they just happen not to vary within ours, then that answers my question.

Yes, that was essentially the point I was making.

I read your article, and I used to think that the multiverse is ad hoc (as an intelligent fine-tuner seems more natural of an explanation). For this reason, I didn't used to think it was a good answer to fine-tuning. Then I realized that the multiverse theory doesn't exist to "get around" the fine-tuning problem, it is there as its existence cashes out from the math of some of our best theories (inflation, loop quantum gravity, superstring theory ect..). Thus, since the idea of a multiverse has nothing to do with fine-tuning; its not ad hoc. It is just a perfectly natural solution, as its existence is implied by modern cosmology separately from the fine-tuning issue.

Even without string theory, etc., I question whether it's ad hoc. Or at least whether it's anymore ad hoc than an intelligent designer and creator. In both cases, you're positing an entity or entities to explain some observation, namely fine-tuning. The question, really, is which is a better explanation.

I called an apologetics radio station one time and pressed the host on this issue. He had claimed that the multiverse theory is ad hoc because there was no evidence for it. I called and pointed out that fine-tuning itself can serve as evidence for a multi-verse in the same way he claimed that fine-tuning serves as evidence for a designer. In both cases, you'd have to posit something that is sufficient to explain the fine-tuning. At that point, he brought up independent reasons to think there's a God to argue that God was a better explanation. He said it's more parsimonious to posit the known rather than the unknown. I'll say more about that in a minute.

Some people say the multiverse theory is more ad hoc since you're positing multiple entities instead of just one entity. Other people say a designer/creator is ad hoc since you're positing an unknown entity whereas multiple universes would just entail more of what we know to already exist since we know that at least our own universe exists.

At that point, a theist will start bringing up independent reasons to think there's a God, which is supposed to bolster the theory that God designed the universe rather than there being a multiverse. But as soon as they do that, they render the argument from fine-tuning circular. After all, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God, so if they're using the existence of God from other arguments as a premise in their fine-tuning argument, then their argument is circular.

I agree with you that string theory, etc., entail multiple universes, and I think that strengthens the argument. I'm still agnostic about it, though, because string theory, etc., are speculative. I don't know that much about string theory, but from what I've read, I don't get the impression that any universe-generating mechanism accounts for there being a variety of values of constants from universe to universe. From what I can tell, they don't even address the question of whether the values are necessary or contingent. If there's no mechanism or explanation that predicts the values would vary from universe to universe, then these theories don't really answer the fine-tuning problem. The fine-tuning problem can only be answered if the universes have varying values to their constants or if the values of the constants are necessary and couldn't have been otherwise. If the values are necessary, then that would explain "fine-tuning" even if our universe happens to be the only one. If the values are continent, but do not vary, then multiple universes don't explain why there would be any universe with life-permitting values. If the values are contingent, and they do vary, then that would multiply our explanatory resources and successfully explain why at least one universe would have life-permitting values.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:17:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 2:05:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:45:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:34:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 1:22:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:35:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
I think it definitely weakens the argument from fine-tuning. Whether it succeeds in undermining it, I'm not sure.

I wrote some of my thoughts about it on my blog a few years ago:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

"This question is mainly for the many worlds people. If it's true that the constants can vary in value from one universe to the next, and there's no necessity about them having any particular value, why is it that they don't vary within universes? Why, for example, don't we find some electrons in our universe that have different charges than other universes? Why isn't the force of gravity stronger with some masses than with other masses? Why is there such uniformity in our universe when it seems like there could've been diversity? Is it just an incredible coincidence that every particle of the same kind is exactly like every other particle of the same kind all over the universe, or is there a physical cause for it?"

I don't understand.. Why are any of the things you mentioned supposed to be surprising? Maybe in some universes, the laws very within... We just don't live in such a universe. With a multiverse containing an outrageous amount of universes; nothing in our universe should be surprising.

I think you're missing the thrust of my question. I didn't ask the question as a challenge to people who subscribe to mutliverse theories. I wasn't implying anything like an argument against the multi-verse theory by suggesting that if it were true, we should expect the constants to vary within universes. So whether it's surprising or not isn't relevant to my question. I asked the question out of curiosity. It's a genuine question. Assuming the constants are contingent, I want to know why the constants would differ from universe to universe, but not differ within universes.

If you mean to say that maybe in some universes they do vary within that universe, but they just happen not to vary within ours, then that answers my question.

Yes, that was essentially the point I was making.

I read your article, and I used to think that the multiverse is ad hoc (as an intelligent fine-tuner seems more natural of an explanation). For this reason, I didn't used to think it was a good answer to fine-tuning. Then I realized that the multiverse theory doesn't exist to "get around" the fine-tuning problem, it is there as its existence cashes out from the math of some of our best theories (inflation, loop quantum gravity, superstring theory ect..). Thus, since the idea of a multiverse has nothing to do with fine-tuning; its not ad hoc. It is just a perfectly natural solution, as its existence is implied by modern cosmology separately from the fine-tuning issue.

Even without string theory, etc., I question whether it's ad hoc. Or at least whether it's anymore ad hoc than an intelligent designer and creator. In both cases, you're positing an entity or entities to explain some observation, namely fine-tuning. The question, really, is which is a better explanation.

Well, imagine if you came to mount rushmore and someone said "its not designed, there are just an outrageous amount of rock slabs in existence, so, at least one is going to look like that!" it would be completely ad hoc as the designer explanation is more natural. Unless there were external reasons to believe in these crazy amount of rocks that could account for mount rushmore; shouldn't we assume it is designed?


I called an apologetics radio station one time and pressed the host on this issue. He had claimed that the multiverse theory is ad hoc because there was no evidence for it. I called and pointed out that fine-tuning itself can serve as evidence for a multi-verse in the same way he claimed that fine-tuning serves as evidence for a designer. In both cases, you'd have to posit something that is sufficient to explain the fine-tuning. At that point, he brought up independent reasons to think there's a God to argue that God was a better explanation. He said it's more parsimonious to posit the known rather than the unknown. I'll say more about that in a minute.

Some people say the multiverse theory is more ad hoc since you're positing multiple entities instead of just one entity. Other people say a designer/creator is ad hoc since you're positing an unknown entity whereas multiple universes would just entail more of what we know to already exist since we know that at least our own universe exists.

At that point, a theist will start bringing up independent reasons to think there's a God, which is supposed to bolster the theory that God designed the universe rather than there being a multiverse. But as soon as they do that, they render the argument from fine-tuning circular. After all, the conclusion of the argument is that there is a God, so if they're using the existence of God from other arguments as a premise in their fine-tuning argument, then their argument is circular.

I agree with you that string theory, etc., entail multiple universes, and I think that strengthens the argument. I'm still agnostic about it, though, because string theory, etc., are speculative. I don't know that much about string theory, but from what I've read, I don't get the impression that any universe-generating mechanism accounts for there being a variety of values of constants from universe to universe. From what I can tell, they don't even address the question of whether the values are necessary or contingent. If there's no mechanism or explanation that predicts the values would vary from universe to universe, then these theories don't really answer the fine-tuning problem. The fine-tuning problem can only be answered if the universes have varying values to their constants or if the values of the constants are necessary and couldn't have been otherwise. If the values are necessary, then that would explain "fine-tuning" even if our universe happens to be the only one. If the values are continent, but do not vary, then multiple universes don't explain why there would be any universe with life-permitting values. If the values are contingent, and they do vary, then that would multiply our explanatory resources and successfully explain why at least one universe would have life-permitting values.

Well, Alan Guth (the father of inflation) says inflation predicts just that; pocket universes with different values. Inflation is not just speculation, it is a theory widely accepted by cosmologists as actually true based on observation. I mentioned loop quantum cosmology and string theory, but inflation is what has me most convinced.
GoverningDynamics
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:23:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:36:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is the multiverse a good answer to fine-tuning? Discuss.

Uhhh No... because there is no such thing as "multiverse". However, even if there was such a thing as multiverses it would still not be a good answer because the whole "fine-tuning" theory is SEVERELY flawed. It is fundamentally erroneous on the basis that it assumes that because the way matter and life is, that any slight change in the fundamental physical constants would make it unlikely to have developed. The flaw lies in the false assumption that the fundamental physical constants of the universe dictate life development (and matter formation). At best it REFLECTS life development and matter formation. It's like saying if we change something so small as the color of a car, the way we see cars today would be different. Wrong, you can change the wheels, the engine, the color, the shape, etc. and you still will have a car. I mean, granted a jaguar is very different than a ford focus, but uhhh cars nonetheless. A change in the fundamental physical constant would at best change the structure of matter and life development, not eliminate it. And with life development, evolution has proven that life development will cater toward the changing of the structure of matter. Ex, human development from one cell to a multi-trillion cell being, diversity of life from plant, insect, bacteria, etc. Thus, a CHANGING of the fundamental physical constants would only CHANGE the way life is developed and matter is formed...not eliminate it. Sorry...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 2:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 2:05:02 PM, philochristos wrote:

Even without string theory, etc., I question whether it's ad hoc. Or at least whether it's anymore ad hoc than an intelligent designer and creator. In both cases, you're positing an entity or entities to explain some observation, namely fine-tuning. The question, really, is which is a better explanation.

Well, imagine if you came to mount rushmore and someone said "its not designed, there are just an outrageous amount of rock slabs in existence, so, at least one is going to look like that!" it would be completely ad hoc as the designer explanation is more natural. Unless there were external reasons to believe in these crazy amount of rocks that could account for mount rushmore; shouldn't we assume it is designed?

In the case of Mt. Rushmore, we already know that sculptors exist who chisel faces out of stone, so that makes the multi-rock theory ad hoc. But when it comes to adjudicating between a multi-verse and a God, unless you invoke independent arguments for either, either could be considered ad hoc or not ad hoc. Apart from independent reasons to think one is a better explanation, it seems to me that they are on equal footing.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:38:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 2:23:23 PM, GoverningDynamics wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:36:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is the multiverse a good answer to fine-tuning? Discuss.

Uhhh No... because there is no such thing as "multiverse".

Really? Because countless mainstream physicists and cosmologists disagree with you.

However, even if there was such a thing as multiverses it would still not be a good answer because the whole "fine-tuning" theory is SEVERELY flawed. It is fundamentally erroneous on the basis that it assumes that because the way matter and life is, that any slight change in the fundamental physical constants would make it unlikely to have developed. The flaw lies in the false assumption that the fundamental physical constants of the universe dictate life development (and matter formation).

Umm, don't they?

At best it REFLECTS life development and matter formation. It's like saying if we change something so small as the color of a car, the way we see cars today would be different. Wrong, you can change the wheels, the engine, the color, the shape, etc. and you still will have a car.

I'm not sure that's a valid analogy.

I mean, granted a jaguar is very different than a ford focus, but uhhh cars nonetheless. A change in the fundamental physical constant would at best change the structure of matter and life development, not eliminate it. And with life development, evolution has proven that life development will cater toward the changing of the structure of matter. Ex, human development from one cell to a multi-trillion cell being, diversity of life from plant, insect, bacteria, etc. Thus, a CHANGING of the fundamental physical constants would only CHANGE the way life is developed and matter is formed...not eliminate it. Sorry...

Actually, changing certain things would make biological life a we know it impossible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 2:27:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/13/2013 2:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 2:05:02 PM, philochristos wrote:

Even without string theory, etc., I question whether it's ad hoc. Or at least whether it's anymore ad hoc than an intelligent designer and creator. In both cases, you're positing an entity or entities to explain some observation, namely fine-tuning. The question, really, is which is a better explanation.

Well, imagine if you came to mount rushmore and someone said "its not designed, there are just an outrageous amount of rock slabs in existence, so, at least one is going to look like that!" it would be completely ad hoc as the designer explanation is more natural. Unless there were external reasons to believe in these crazy amount of rocks that could account for mount rushmore; shouldn't we assume it is designed?

In the case of Mt. Rushmore, we already know that sculptors exist who chisel faces out of stone, so that makes the multi-rock theory ad hoc. But when it comes to adjudicating between a multi-verse and a God, unless you invoke independent arguments for either, either could be considered ad hoc or not ad hoc. Apart from independent reasons to think one is a better explanation, it seems to me that they are on equal footing.

Fair enough. I guess my analogy was flawed because I was using something we already know for a fact is designed.
GoverningDynamics
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:16:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 2:38:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 2:23:23 PM, GoverningDynamics wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:36:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is the multiverse a good answer to fine-tuning? Discuss.

Uhhh No... because there is no such thing as "multiverse".

Really? Because countless mainstream physicists and cosmologists disagree with you.

By definition of the word universe alone discredits any formation of a multiverse. So, although countless mainstream physicists and cosmologists would disagree... they are still wrong. There is nothing greater than or outside of infinity. An accomplished scientist intellectually saying "infinity plus one" is just as wrong as a child in the playground.

However, even if there was such a thing as multiverses it would still not be a good answer because the whole "fine-tuning" theory is SEVERELY flawed. It is fundamentally erroneous on the basis that it assumes that because the way matter and life is, that any slight change in the fundamental physical constants would make it unlikely to have developed. The flaw lies in the false assumption that the fundamental physical constants of the universe dictate life development (and matter formation).

Umm, don't they?

No not dictate... reflect. Is matter the way it is because life molded it that way, or is life the way it is because matter molded it that way? It's the chicken egg causality dilemma. There is no way of proving which one DICTATES the other, we can simply say one REFLECTS the other because in all actuality it seems that they both work together to support each others existence.

At best it REFLECTS life development and matter formation. It's like saying if we change something so small as the color of a car, the way we see cars today would be different. Wrong, you can change the wheels, the engine, the color, the shape, etc. and you still will have a car.

I'm not sure that's a valid analogy.

It's like what happens when a new species is formed when a member of a previous species moves to a new, yet extremely different, habitat. Like that of the canine species that eventually moved further north to the snowy region that can no longer produce offspring with its sunnier climate ancestors, thus forming a new species. The car is like the canine, you can change its insides and its outside...life just have a funny way of persisting nonetheless.

I mean, granted a jaguar is very different than a ford focus, but uhhh cars nonetheless. A change in the fundamental physical constant would at best change the structure of matter and life development, not eliminate it. And with life development, evolution has proven that life development will cater toward the changing of the structure of matter. Ex, human development from one cell to a multi-trillion cell being, diversity of life from plant, insect, bacteria, etc. Thus, a CHANGING of the fundamental physical constants would only CHANGE the way life is developed and matter is formed...not eliminate it. Sorry...

Actually, changing certain things would make biological life a we know it impossible.

Not really, there's a feature of life called adaptation. For some strange reason, no matter how you structure matter, life will find a way...against all odds and even logic...to flourish. At most a change would effect what SCALE biological life exists, and in time life will flourish to the scale it was once deemed impossible. So, again...changing of the fundamental physical constants would only change the way life is developed and formed...not eliminated. Sorry...
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies within this universe alone, each with hundreds of billions of stars, flies in the face of the fine-tuning argument. With all the planets out there, it would be extremely improbable to NOT have a few life-sustaining ones.