Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Multiverse Hypothesis

tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:26:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

If you want to believe there is no God, it is a good bed time story to help you sleep.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:27:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:26:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

If you want to believe there is no God, it is a good bed time story to help you sleep.

Lol...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:38:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:26:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

If you want to believe there is no God, it is a good bed time story to help you sleep.

A Multiverse wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. He could've started them all. The possible existence of a multiverse still doesn't allow for an infinite regress.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:40:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:38:01 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:26:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

If you want to believe there is no God, it is a good bed time story to help you sleep.

A Multiverse wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. He could've started them all. The possible existence of a multiverse still doesn't allow for an infinite regress.

True.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 3:23:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:26:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

If you want to believe there is no God, it is a good bed time story to help you sleep.

Aha! I am taking this as your admission that belief in God is merely a bedtime story so as to enable a peaceful sleep!

Gotcha!

LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 3:25:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

Hmmm...."good reasons?"

Not really.

But: is the Multi-Verse and Super-Symmetry Theory an interesting and intriguing one?

Yes.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 4:33:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

Here's a cool little five-minute quickie vid on the ideas............

https://www.youtube.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:41:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Multiverse and theism aren't mutually exclusive either, lol. This isn't the religion forum.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Except it's not a cover up, is it? The fine-tuning of the universe is always stated very clearly in every exposition of the multiverse I've seen. We science fans have nothing to hide. Plus if it wasn't for science you'd never have heard of fine-tuning. It's not in the Bible, is it?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 11:57:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:14:06 AM, kp98 wrote:
It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Except it's not a cover up, is it? The fine-tuning of the universe is always stated very clearly in every exposition of the multiverse I've seen. We science fans have nothing to hide. Plus if it wasn't for science you'd never have heard of fine-tuning. It's not in the Bible, is it?

I wouldn't know, I haven't read the Bible.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:18:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 11:57:44 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:14:06 AM, kp98 wrote:
It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Except it's not a cover up, is it? The fine-tuning of the universe is always stated very clearly in every exposition of the multiverse I've seen. We science fans have nothing to hide. Plus if it wasn't for science you'd never have heard of fine-tuning. It's not in the Bible, is it?

I wouldn't know, I haven't read the Bible.

BUT...you should know that the whole term, "fine tuning" or even "finely tuned Universe" is sort of as misnomer. Cosmologists and Atheists do not really like to use it, as it implies a Designer. A Creator. And it is a favorite argument for IDers.

99.99% of the known Universe is totally and mercilessly hostile for us to live in. Further, we now know that we don't know what comprises some 90% of it. Oh, we refer to that 90% or so as Dark Matter and Dark Energy--the latter only being discovered about a decade ago--but we are not sure what exactly they are comprised of.

It is true that if the conditions in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang were off by even minuscule proportions, we would not be here. (Like the gravitational force; or the balance of matter and ant-matter.)

But. So what? If they were off we would not be here. Thus it would not be a topic of conversation of a bone of contention.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:22:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:18:50 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/20/2015 11:57:44 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:14:06 AM, kp98 wrote:
It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Except it's not a cover up, is it? The fine-tuning of the universe is always stated very clearly in every exposition of the multiverse I've seen. We science fans have nothing to hide. Plus if it wasn't for science you'd never have heard of fine-tuning. It's not in the Bible, is it?

I wouldn't know, I haven't read the Bible.

BUT...you should know that the whole term, "fine tuning" or even "finely tuned Universe" is sort of as misnomer. Cosmologists and Atheists do not really like to use it, as it implies a Designer. A Creator. And it is a favorite argument for IDers.

99.99% of the known Universe is totally and mercilessly hostile for us to live in. Further, we now know that we don't know what comprises some 90% of it. Oh, we refer to that 90% or so as Dark Matter and Dark Energy--the latter only being discovered about a decade ago--but we are not sure what exactly they are comprised of.

It is true that if the conditions in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang were off by even minuscule proportions, we would not be here. (Like the gravitational force; or the balance of matter and ant-matter.)

But. So what? If they were off we would not be here. Thus it would not be a topic of conversation of a bone of contention.

Of course atheists don't like to use the term fine tuning, it goes without saying. Yet plenty of them do, and openly acknowlege that the issue exists.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".

Ok, I see what your saying.

Not all scientists will ascribe to the multiverse. Some say that the laws and constants can be fiddled with and produce the same universe. So it is not fine-tuned if this were the case. I think this idea is more reasonable, although I have never seen the idea really fleshed out.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:09:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:01:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".

Ok, I see what your saying.

Not all scientists will ascribe to the multiverse. Some say that the laws and constants can be fiddled with and produce the same universe. So it is not fine-tuned if this were the case. I think this idea is more reasonable, although I have never seen the idea really fleshed out.

I wouldn't say either of those. I would simply question the implications being ascribed to the knowledge that the universe has precise parameters which are currently unexplained by deeper facts. Even if the properties of the universe are unstable with respect to these parameters, all it means is that a different set of parameters would result in a very different universe.

That fact itself doesn't seem to suggest anything more to me. Saying that implies the universe is fine-tuned for us seems to me no different than saying that this pothole was fine-tuned for this puddle, because if the pothole was even slightly different, the puddle would be a different puddle. That just seems quite backwards.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:15:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:09:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:01:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".

Ok, I see what your saying.

Not all scientists will ascribe to the multiverse. Some say that the laws and constants can be fiddled with and produce the same universe. So it is not fine-tuned if this were the case. I think this idea is more reasonable, although I have never seen the idea really fleshed out.

I wouldn't say either of those. I would simply question the implications being ascribed to the knowledge that the universe has precise parameters which are currently unexplained by deeper facts. Even if the properties of the universe are unstable with respect to these parameters, all it means is that a different set of parameters would result in a very different universe.

That fact itself doesn't seem to suggest anything more to me. Saying that implies the universe is fine-tuned for us seems to me no different than saying that this pothole was fine-tuned for this puddle, because if the pothole was even slightly different, the puddle would be a different puddle. That just seems quite backwards.

It doesn't seem backwards to me. The very fact that there are trillions of possible universes that wouldn't support life as we know it(and probably any type of life) and we just happened to have a big bang that produce the one unlikely one that did is a bit too much for me to attribute to luck.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:25:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:15:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:09:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:01:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".

Ok, I see what your saying.

Not all scientists will ascribe to the multiverse. Some say that the laws and constants can be fiddled with and produce the same universe. So it is not fine-tuned if this were the case. I think this idea is more reasonable, although I have never seen the idea really fleshed out.

I wouldn't say either of those. I would simply question the implications being ascribed to the knowledge that the universe has precise parameters which are currently unexplained by deeper facts. Even if the properties of the universe are unstable with respect to these parameters, all it means is that a different set of parameters would result in a very different universe.

That fact itself doesn't seem to suggest anything more to me. Saying that implies the universe is fine-tuned for us seems to me no different than saying that this pothole was fine-tuned for this puddle, because if the pothole was even slightly different, the puddle would be a different puddle. That just seems quite backwards.

It doesn't seem backwards to me. The very fact that there are trillions of possible universes that wouldn't support life as we know it(and probably any type of life) and we just happened to have a big bang that produce the one unlikely one that did is a bit too much for me to attribute to luck.

Does the interpretation of the puddle seem backwards to you?

That's right, they wouldn't support our kind of life. Does that mean they wouldn't support any kind of life? Obviously we don't know that. And how many other possible universes are there? Could the parameters have taken any value? Do we know that? What is the probability distribution over that parameter space? Are we assuming each parameter could take any value with equal probability? Is that a valid assumption? There are far more questions than answers, and I think you have to make far too many assumptions to make the claims you're making for them to be meaningful claims.

Back to the puddle example, what you seem to be saying is that because puddle finds itself in a pothole that fits its shape (because we find ourselves in a universe which can support our form of life), the pothole must have been fine-tuned for the puddle (the universe must have been fine-tuned for us). That does seem backwards to me, and it doesn't seem miraculous. What would be miraculous is if we lived in a universe which shouldn't allow for our form of life.

It's analogous to evolution in that respect. Is the savannah fine-tuned for the lion, or is the lion fine-tuned for the savannah? How have you determined that the universe is fine-tuned for us, and we are not fine-tuned for the niche we occupy in the universe?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:32:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It has properties that allows life to exist, but really isn't fine tuned.

To say that it is, is like looking at an abandoned, structurally unsafe factory full of broken glass, barbed wire, used hypodermic needles, rotting wood, rusty nails, and home to a collection of wild bears and concluding it is fine tuned for children's birthday parties.

The vast majority of the universe would kill us instantly and indeed even the safest part of the universe that we know contains many existential threats from asteroids to radiation to lead.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:25:30 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:15:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:09:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:01:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:57:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:52:14 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:49:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:40:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:37:21 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 12:28:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Doesn't the multiverse hypotheses (Everett, 1957) precede the fine-tuning hypothesis (some time in the 1970s)? And aren't its primary motivations as interpretations of quantum uncertainty and to explain the strength of gravity? So how can it be a band-aid solution for fine-tuning for life (also, since when was the universe fine-tuned for life...? that's not what fine-tuning refers to).

I'm sure you know very well that many scientists ascribe multiverses as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Do you want me to list them?

I agree that it has been proposed as a solution for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (glad you dropped the "for life" bit). That does not make the statement, "It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life" correct, since the hypothesis does not exist for that purpose. That is a merely a consequence of the hypothesis, not a description of its aim, purpose, or meaning.

Of course you will say that, but we all know it's not true. They don't want an intelligent designer, they will result to ascribing multiverses, which is unfalsifiable and could never be proven.

What is not true? That the multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered?

No, Im saying it's not true that scientists don't use fine tuning to as a means to denying a fine tuner. We were talking about motivations.

We already agreed that people use the multiverse as a solution to fine-tuning. What I'm saying is that is not the primary motivation of the multiverse hypotheses, which is obvious since the multiverse hypotheses originates before the fine-tuning concept even existed.

I will agree that people use the multiverse as a way of saying that fine-tuning does not necessitate a "fine-tuner". While it does show a lack of necessity, I will also agree it's not a good argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner to begin with, since we have no answers to the questions of "fine-tuned for what", or "fine-tuned from what".

Ok, I see what your saying.

Not all scientists will ascribe to the multiverse. Some say that the laws and constants can be fiddled with and produce the same universe. So it is not fine-tuned if this were the case. I think this idea is more reasonable, although I have never seen the idea really fleshed out.

I wouldn't say either of those. I would simply question the implications being ascribed to the knowledge that the universe has precise parameters which are currently unexplained by deeper facts. Even if the properties of the universe are unstable with respect to these parameters, all it means is that a different set of parameters would result in a very different universe.

That fact itself doesn't seem to suggest anything more to me. Saying that implies the universe is fine-tuned for us seems to me no different than saying that this pothole was fine-tuned for this puddle, because if the pothole was even slightly different, the puddle would be a different puddle. That just seems quite backwards.

It doesn't seem backwards to me. The very fact that there are trillions of possible universes that wouldn't support life as we know it(and probably any type of life) and we just happened to have a big bang that produce the one unlikely one that did is a bit too much for me to attribute to luck.

Does the interpretation of the puddle seem backwards to you?

That's right, they wouldn't support our kind of life. Does that mean they wouldn't support any kind of life? Obviously we don't know that. And how many other possible universes are there? Could the parameters have taken any value? Do we know that? What is the probability distribution over that parameter space? Are we assuming each parameter could take any value with equal probability? Is that a valid assumption? There are far more questions than answers, and I think you have to make far too many assumptions to make the claims you're making for them to be meaningful claims.

Back to the puddle example, what you seem to be saying is that because puddle finds itself in a pothole that fits its shape (because we find ourselves in a universe which can support our form of life), the pothole must have been fine-tuned for the puddle (the universe must have been fine-tuned for us). That does seem backwards to me, and it doesn't seem miraculous. What would be miraculous is if we lived in a universe which shouldn't allow for our form of life.

It's analogous to evolution in that respect. Is the savannah fine-tuned for the lion, or is the lion fine-tuned for the savannah? How have you determined that the universe is fine-tuned for us, and we are not fine-tuned for the niche we occupy in the universe?

My personal belief is that life is an integral part of the universe. And the universe can't be any other way than it is. But I have nothing really to base that on. Only that I see that everything fits perfectly together. They are finding out more and more "laws" of biology that make me feel that all of life is the result of laws and everything has to be the way it is.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:37:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:32:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It has properties that allows life to exist, but really isn't fine tuned.

To say that it is, is like looking at an abandoned, structurally unsafe factory full of broken glass, barbed wire, used hypodermic needles, rotting wood, rusty nails, and home to a collection of wild bears and concluding it is fine tuned for children's birthday parties.

The vast majority of the universe would kill us instantly and indeed even the safest part of the universe that we know contains many existential threats from asteroids to radiation to lead.

And yet we live on a goldilocks planet in the right solar system in the right part of the galaxy.

https://www.youtube.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:53:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:37:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:32:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It has properties that allows life to exist, but really isn't fine tuned.

To say that it is, is like looking at an abandoned, structurally unsafe factory full of broken glass, barbed wire, used hypodermic needles, rotting wood, rusty nails, and home to a collection of wild bears and concluding it is fine tuned for children's birthday parties.

The vast majority of the universe would kill us instantly and indeed even the safest part of the universe that we know contains many existential threats from asteroids to radiation to lead.

And yet we live on a goldilocks planet in the right solar system in the right part of the galaxy.

https://www.youtube.com...

Surely that should tell you something. The laws of nature are so stacked against life, you need a massive confluence of random events for intelligent life to exist:

You need a right sized planet to aggregate with the right chemical balance of iron, carbon and other minerals at just the right distance from just the right type of star and evolve oxygen producing bacteria with a planet that has a magnetic field and not too much co2 to have intelligent life.

All of those things are not examples of fine tuning, but random consitions based on the laws of nature.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 1:55:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 1:53:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:37:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/20/2015 1:32:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:40:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:00:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
Are there any good reasons to think we live in a multiverse?

No. It is a bandaid solution for atheists to cover up the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It has properties that allows life to exist, but really isn't fine tuned.

To say that it is, is like looking at an abandoned, structurally unsafe factory full of broken glass, barbed wire, used hypodermic needles, rotting wood, rusty nails, and home to a collection of wild bears and concluding it is fine tuned for children's birthday parties.

The vast majority of the universe would kill us instantly and indeed even the safest part of the universe that we know contains many existential threats from asteroids to radiation to lead.

And yet we live on a goldilocks planet in the right solar system in the right part of the galaxy.

https://www.youtube.com...

Surely that should tell you something. The laws of nature are so stacked against life, you need a massive confluence of random events for intelligent life to exist:

You need a right sized planet to aggregate with the right chemical balance of iron, carbon and other minerals at just the right distance from just the right type of star and evolve oxygen producing bacteria with a planet that has a magnetic field and not too much co2 to have intelligent life.

All of those things are not examples of fine tuning, but random consitions based on the laws of nature.

Too many coincidences. Too perfect to be the result of chance.