Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11

# Fine-Tuning And The Multiverse (Again)

 Posts: 9,468 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PMPosted: 3 years agoI think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.
 Posts: 1,518 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/27/2013 1:39:34 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like." "Albert Einstein http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
 Posts: 9,468 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/27/2013 2:17:08 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/27/2013 1:39:34 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.I'm not saying that the multiverse theory is ad hoc, just that positing a multiverse with enough universes to make ours existing probable by chance is ad hoc. It is how many universes that need to be posited that is ad hoc, not the multiverse theory itself.