Absolute proof against the multiverse

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe.

It can't be very fine-tuned if you need more than one copy to get the point across.

it is a better explanation than design

Given just how crappy the universe can be, "design" is only true if a drunk kindergartner did it.

so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem

You're operating under the flawed premise that it is fine tuned. Natural selection works PRECISELY because things go wrong and only those who can deal with it will survive.

ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer

How so?

 

[Cacotopia]

Where'd leroy jenkins go?

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

Hey I thought there was going to be a cool discussion on multiverse theories, but then you say something that just not true. Well it is if your ignored the basic evidence that tree rings and ice cores give. Not to mention starlight. But hey maybe there's another universe out there with a young earth, but it's not this one.

 

[leroy]

Hey I thought there was going to be a cool discussion on multiverse theories, but then you say something that just not true. Well it is if your ignored the basic evidence that tree rings and ice cores give. Not to mention starlight. But hey maybe there's another universe out there with a young earth, but it's not this one.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic /random event. This means that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) for a radioactive element to decay 1,000,000 faster than it normal decay rate. This would be extremely unlikely, but if you have an infinite number of universes We have a guarantee that in some universes such an improbable event will happen in some universes.

Obviously the point that I am making is that this would be a very stupid argument for YEC, no reasonable person would accept that argument to justify a young earth.

But some naturalists use the same logic to explain away the fine tuning of the universe, they would grant that the universe is FT and they would grant that it is very unlikely to have a life permitting universe…..but they would say: “given that we probably have an infinite number of universes we
We have a guarantee that life permitting universes every once in a while, no matter how unlikely this would be” (this is what people like Dawkins or Hawking would say)


the point is that in both cases the answer is stupid.

Just to be clear I am not saying that the concept of a multiverse is stupid, all I am saying is that it wouldn’t solve the FT problem

 

[leroy]

The Boltzman brain paradox has absolutely nothing to do with the various hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe.

s.

Well that is because nobody is talking about the origin of the universe.

I am making a critique for those who:

1 Grant that the universe is Finley Tuned

2 Grant that life permitting universes are unlikely

3 and try to solve this problem by proposing the weak atrophic principle, which states that of there is a potentially infinite number of universes some universes would be finlytuned for intelligent life

This represents the view of people like Dawkins and Hawkins


My point is that the BB Paradox completely destroys this explanation.

If 1,2,3 don’t represent your view then this argument is not applicable to you, so feel free to ignore it.

 

[leroy]

There seems to be a bit a non sequitur at the end of this. Why on earth would ID be an alternative to the multiverse hypothesis?

There are alternatives to the multiverse hypothesis, notably the hypothesis that there is only one universe, so far as we can tell. This "one universe" hypothesis certainly does not entail ID.

In fact it is a bit pointless discussing ID in the same content as any scientific hypothesis, since it is well established* that ID is not a scientific idea.

*cf Kitzmiller trial for example

What we are trying to determine is which hypothesis represents a better explanation for the Fine tuning of the universe:

Multiverse hypothesis: (weak atrophic principle)

Or

Inteligent Design

Nobody is claiming that these are the only 2 alternatives, nor that these are mutually exclusive (both could be wrong, both could be correct)


The question is which represents a better explanation for the FT of the universe. This question assumes that the universe is FT, if you don’t grant this assumption then this thread is not for you

 

[shunyadragon]

Well that is because nobody is talking about the origin of the universe.

I am, but you are making unfounded layman assumptions, and you are selectively citing and misrepresenting .scientists based on a religious agenda.

I am making a critique for those who:

[/quote]
1 Grant that the universe is Finley Tuned. [/quote]

It is not granted that our universe nor our physical existence is finely tuned.

Not based on a scientific hypothesis

2 Grant that life permitting universes are unlikely,

3 and try to solve this problem by proposing the weak atrophic principle, which states that of there is a potentially infinite number of universes some universes would be finlytuned for intelligent life.

The claim of being finely tuned for intelligent life is not a scientific hypothesis.

[/quote]
This represents the view of people like Dawkins and Hawkins. [/quote]

No

My point is that the BB Paradox completely destroys this explanation.

No it is not, the cience of the multiverse is based on the evidence surround the expansion of our universe.

[/quote]
If 1,2,3 don’t represent your view then this argument is not applicable to you, so feel free to ignore it.[/QUOTE]

They not only do not represent my view, but the view of virtually all the scientists involved. You statements, and selective out of context citations, so far are without foundation in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

What we are trying to determine is which hypothesis represents a better explanation for the Fine tuning of the universe:

Multiverse hypothesis: (weak atrophic principle)

Or

Inteligent Design

Nobody is claiming that these are the only 2 alternatives, nor that these are mutually exclusive (both could be wrong, both could be correct)


The question is which represents a better explanation for the FT of the universe. This question assumes that the universe is FT, if you don’t grant this assumption then this thread is not for you

The claim of a fine tuned universe is not a scientific claim nor a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

 

[osgart]

Has anyone considered what lies beyond existence as we know it? Existence itself must be endless in all directions. The very ends of space as we know it, more space in total endlessness. If not space then something else. Existence must be without end because a total void of pure nothingness couldnt possibly exist outside of the known or knowable multiverses or universes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Has anyone considered what lies beyond existence as we know it? Existence itself must be endless in all directions. The very ends of space as we know it, more space in total endlessness. If not space then something else. Existence must be without end because a total void of pure nothingness couldnt possibly exist outside of the known or knowable multiverses or universes.

Fundamentally science proposes our eternal endless existence is simply the Quantum World out of which our universe, and all possible universes form, exist, and fade away to Quantum nothingness.

 

[exchemist]

What we are trying to determine is which hypothesis represents a better explanation for the Fine tuning of the universe:

Multiverse hypothesis: (weak atrophic principle)

Or

Inteligent Design

Nobody is claiming that these are the only 2 alternatives, nor that these are mutually exclusive (both could be wrong, both could be correct)


The question is which represents a better explanation for the FT of the universe. This question assumes that the universe is FT, if you don’t grant this assumption then this thread is not for you

You read my mind. I do in fact think the fine tuning argument is flawed, though this was not what my post was talking about, of course.

The fine tuning argument seems to me to betray a false understanding of probability. If a system can by chance be in one of, say, a billion different states, you cannot point to the state it happens to be found in and say "this cannot have happened by chance". That is obviously faulty logic.

 

[leroy]

I am, but you are making unfounded layman assumptions, and you are selectively citing and misrepresenting .scientists based on a religious agenda.

I am making a critique for those who:

1 Grant that the universe is Finley Tuned. [/quote]

It is not granted that our universe nor our physical existence is finely tuned.

Not based on a scientific hypothesis

2 Grant that life permitting universes are unlikely,



The claim of being finely tuned for intelligent life is not a scientific hypothesis.

[/quote]
This represents the view of people like Dawkins and Hawkins. [/quote]

No



No it is not, the cience of the multiverse is based on the evidence surround the expansion of our universe.

[/quote]
If 1,2,3 don’t represent your view then this argument is not applicable to you, so feel free to ignore it.[/QUOTE]

They not only do not represent my view, but the view of virtually all the scientists involved. You statements, and selective out of context citations, so far are without foundation in science.[/QUOTE]

If these claims do not represent your view, then this thread is not for you.


Yes this is the view of Hawkign and Dawkins and yes to say that the universe is FT is a widely accepted fact, but none of this is relevant

My own personal view is that you have no idea on what it is meant by FT, but in this thread I wont even try to explain the concept, you can look it up in Wikipedia, or any other source that you would consider reliable

 

[leroy]

The claim of a fine tuned universe is not a scientific claim nor a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

yes it is,
Your straw man understanding of the concept of FT might be unscientific and unfalsifiable, but the real concept is scientific, testable and widely accepted as a fact by scientists

 

[leroy]

You read my mind. I do in fact think the fine tuning argument is flawed, though this was not what my post was talking about, of course.

The fine tuning argument seems to me to betray a false understanding of probability. If a system can by chance be in one of, say, a billion different states, you cannot point to the state it happens to be found in and say "this cannot have happened by chance". That is obviously faulty logic.

Disagree.

If you are playing poker and you get 100 royal flushes in a row, you would be 100% justified in saying that it could have not happened by chance.

 

[shunyadragon]

yes it is,
Your straw man understanding of the concept of FT might be unscientific and unfalsifiable, but the real concept is scientific, testable and widely accepted as a fact by scientists

You have failed to present sources defining fine tuning as viable scientific hypothesis.

@exchemist gave a good explanation where your argument has no foundation in science., and you failed to give a coherent response.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Disagree.

If you are playing poker and you get 100 royal flushes in a row, you would be 100% justified in saying that it could have not happened by chance.

IF?!?!?! This is hilarious. IF does not produce a viable coherent argument.

 

[osgart]

Fundamentally science proposes our eternal endless existence is simply the Quantum World out of which our universe, and all possible universes form, exist, and fade away to Quantum nothingness.

Not a true nothingness, but a quantum one. That could mean anything. It is endless something though.

That is also through the lens of the known, and the knowable. Outside of that could be anything vastly different.

The only thing i would suffice to say is that because existence exists, existence itself must be endless because nothing cant be if existence is.

 

[leroy]

You have failed to present sources defining fine tuning as viable scientific hypothesis.

@exchemist gave a good explanation where your argument has no foundation in science., and you failed to give a coherent response.

Still waiting . . .

Well that is because I made the thread with the assumption that the participants are already familiar with the concept of FT, that understand the argument as typically presented by theists and that they would ether agree or disagree on whether if design isa a better explanation than the MV Hypothesis for the fine tuning of the universe.

"from wikipedia
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.["

This paragraph describes the multiverse explanation (also called multiverse antropic principle) which I argue that design is a better explanation

The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, it is unsurprising that we find ourselves in a hospitable universe if there is such a multiverse. The Multiverse hypothesis is therefore thought to provide an elegant explanation of the finding that we exist despite the required fine-tuning. (See [31] for a detailed discussion of the arguments for and against this suggested explanation.)

.

 

[leroy]

@exchemist gave a good explanation where your argument has no foundation in science., and you failed to give a coherent response.

Still waiting . . .

Exchemist doest grant that the universe is FT, therefore the argument is not applicable to him


You can always start a new thread where you argue that the universe is not FT, I will be happy to participate in that thread.

This thread is only applicable for those who grant that the universe is FT and claim that the multiverse anthropic principle is a better explanation that design.

 

[sayak83]

Well that is because nobody is talking about the origin of the universe.

I am making a critique for those who:

1 Grant that the universe is Finley Tuned

2 Grant that life permitting universes are unlikely

3 and try to solve this problem by proposing the weak atrophic principle, which states that of there is a potentially infinite number of universes some universes would be finlytuned for intelligent life

This represents the view of people like Dawkins and Hawkins


My point is that the BB Paradox completely destroys this explanation.

If 1,2,3 don’t represent your view then this argument is not applicable to you, so feel free to ignore it.

Nobody here grants any of these things.
So you will be arguing with thin air if you limit yourself to that.