Absolute proof against the multiverse

[shunyadragon]

...

Science is dependent upon philosophical assumptions. If you drop philosophy you drop all science and all reason.

You have not demonstrated any other assumption in science other than universalism.

Predictability is the main standard for the results in Methodological Naturalism. Claims of 'fine tuning' require what would be the possible variability of 'natural constants' when our universe formed and every possible universe. The actual possible variability of the 'constants' is unknown, and may have a wide range of values or a vary narrow range values depending on the IF statements.

 

[leroy]

Not remotely related to Methodological Naturalism and the criteria and assumptions of falsifying theories and hypothesis and their predictability.

Stop making irrelevant assertions, your are suppose to show that Counterfactuals (What you call If Statements as you call them) are unfalsifiable

 

[Sir Doom]

Nobody would deny that science is the best source of knowledge, but there are other sources of knowledge (experiences, logic, history, ethics etc) and usually (if not always) science coexists and is dependent upon these sources of knowledge.

Regardless to the point, of course.

Experience, logic and history are all scientific to the degree that they are applied scientifically. Ethics is not concerned so much with the properties of reality, so much as the properties of us. Certainly, in this context it can weigh on the usage of scientific discovery. The ethics of the method are immutable. Discovery is not beholden to anything. We find what we find regardless. How we use what we find is another subject entirely. What we find isn't up to us, its up to what is there to find!

For exampke: Currently, no one is making neutron stars into planet-killing weapons. However, this is not an entirely infeasible possibility. This doesn't mean we should halt all study of neutron stars in order to stop future planet-killers that may never exist. Ethics comes after discovery.

 

[`mud]

This thread is like boiling water in a sieve !
The fire always go out before the steam forms !

 

[metis]

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis

It is virtually impossible, and logically so, to confirm nor deny the multiverse concept as we have no ability to see beyond the confines of our universe.

However, imo, I think the multiverse hypothesis is likely true because of what we now know about quantum mechanics. And if we assume there's a God, then why should we assume He made only one universe.

 

[leroy]

I know what you meant. I responded exactly to it. Your conclusion is contingent upon at least 8 assumptions.

1 the universe is fine tuned
2 multiverse explains fine tuning

These two are granted by the OP. Assumed for the sake of discussion.

3 multiverse indicates abundant intelligence.

The existence of intelligence in this universe is thus far sparse, therefore it does not necessarily follow that it is abundant across the multiverse.

4 abundant intelligence indicates intelligence well beyond ours

There is nothing to indicate any level of intelligence in anything outside this planet. Therefore, it does not follow that there would necessarily be higher intelligences across the universe let alone the multiverse.

5 that creating artificial and yet 'actual' universes is a possible thing

No one knows how the universe came to be, therefore it does not follow that it is an artificially reproducible phenomenon at all.

6 that it's also favorable to do so

Even if it is possible to create a universe artificially, it does not follow that it is a good idea. There could be disastrous effects to doing so such that a capable intelligence is unwilling.

7 that it's also repeatable enough to be frequent

Even if it is a good idea and possible, it does not follow that it is economic viable. The resource/time cost could very likely exceed the returns.

8 that its more frequent than natural formation

Even if its cheap, easy and effective the frequency of non-advanced-universe-creating-universes could exceed their opposite by trillions to one for all we know. It does not follow that we are more likely in an artificial actual one. A simulation? Perhaps the math bears out, there. But one would have to be very clear where the line between 'artificial-actual' and 'artificial-simulated' is drawn. I don't think there is an objective way to draw that line.

In summary, I believe you are making too many logical leaps to arrive at your conclusion. I am not convinced that fine tuning is any indicator of intelligent design of our universe if we consider a multiverse explanation of fine tuning.

1-7 Are uncontroversial, as long as there is a possibility, multiverse hypothesis guaranties that it would happen every once in a while.

The only controversial is the last point; sure I cannot prove with certainty that artificial world would outperform natural world, but it seems a reasonable (or at least possible) assumption. Not to mention that the burden proof would be in the multiverse theorist.

 

[leroy]

You have not demonstrated any other assumption in science other than universalism.
.

How do you know that scientists in India and science in USA obtain the same results?

but Hindu scientist do not reach any different conclusions and predictions of theories and hypothesis than Western scientists do

how do you know it is true?

 

[leroy]

Well OK but then I don't see where you are going with your entropy argument. The ice example is instructive, in fact. Ice forms spontaneously under the right conditions, creating a more ordered arrangement of molecules and reducing entropy as it does so. This does not violate the 2nd Law of TD because of course Latent Heat of Fusion , i.e. low temperature heat, is given off into the environment as the ice forms. It's the same with life.

All life (a highly ordered, i.e. low entropy, molecular arrangement) requires is a source of energy which it can reject again in a somewhat higher entropy form, that's all. For instance it seems quite likely that life originated at thermal vents in the oceans. All it needed was some hot water and some minerals to provide energy at an entropy low enough that it could in due course be rejected into colder water, having created more order within the organism along the way.

You don't even need stars for that. All you need is enough radioactivity in a planet to create hot springs. So, the way I see it, the universe can carry on supporting life until the radioactivity in a planet, or perhaps even a brown dwarf ex-star, eventually runs down.

Thermal vents also require low entropy to exist.

Eventually (in the distant future) there would be no stars, no thermal vents, no volcanos no brown dwarf, nor any other sort of useable energy. Life cannot exist when we rich this point.

Statistically speaking the most probable universe would be a universe dominated by black holes, or radiation, no stars, no planets no galaxies etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that scientists in India and science in USA obtain the same results?

Easy literally thousands of peer reviewed science publications in international and national journals.

how do you know it is true?

Easy literally thousands of peer reviewed science publications in international and national journals.

 

[leroy]

Easy literally thousands of peer reviewed science publications in international and national journals.




Easy literally thousands of peer reviewed science publications in international and national journals.

And how do you know that those papers are real?..........ultimately you are assuming that you exist that you read the papers and that your memory is reliable…



These are all philosophical assumptions,

 

[Sir Doom]

1-7 Are uncontroversial, as long as there is a possibility, multiverse hypothesis guaranties that it would happen every once in a while.

Yes, but the issue is that you can't demonstrate the possibility of any of them, thus you cannot describe them as necessarily possible in this way.

1 & 2: These are both a given based on the OP, I've been sure to stress this. I do not actually agree that the universe is fine-tuned or that multiverse explains why, even if it does happen to be fine-tuned. Please understand I am suspending disbelief to participate in the question. It doesn't mean I cannot present an argument to either of these points, it just means I won't be presenting one as a courtesy.

#3 is actually two assumptions in one. First that life is frequent in the multiverse, second that intelligent life is frequent in the multiverse. Life is not frequent in our universe. Intelligent life is not frequent among life. You must assume both of these in order to get to #4.

So, my statement is this:

3a: Life IS NOT frequent in this universe, therefore IS NOT frequent in the multiverse either.
3b: Intelligence (human scale or better) IS NOT frequent in life, therefore IS NOT frequent even in the infrequent life in the multiverse either.

Both of these must be shown to be incorrect with a counter example of observable reality, such as I am showing you.

The only controversial is the last point; sure I cannot prove with certainty that artificial world would outperform natural world, but it seems a reasonable (or at least possible) assumption.

As I said, simulation is probable mathematically. Its not really something I believe, but from the perspective you present I can see how a simulated universe might hold water, given far fewer assumptions than 'artificial actual' universes.

Not to mention that the burden proof would be in the multiverse theorist.

I do not cater to the idea of 'burden of proof'. Its a non-argument.

 

[exchemist]

Thermal vents also require low entropy to exist.

Eventually (in the distant future) there would be no stars, no thermal vents, no volcanos no brown dwarf, nor any other sort of useable energy. Life cannot exist when we rich this point.

Statistically speaking the most probable universe would be a universe dominated by black holes, or radiation, no stars, no planets no galaxies etc.

Yes yes, the eventual heat death of the universe, we all understand that.

But if by "low entropy" you simply mean any state of the universe before that condition is reached, then so what? All you seem to be saying is that life can be sustained until then, i.e. 10¹⁰⁰ or more years into the future. So that does not make it at all "improbable", does it?

 

[leroy]

Yes yes, the eventual heat death of the universe, we all understand that.

But if by "low entropy" you simply mean any state of the universe before that condition is reached, then so what? All you seem to be saying is that life can be sustained until then, i.e. 10¹⁰⁰ or more years into the future. So that does not make it at all "improbable", does it?

The point that I am making ins that statistically speaking the universe most likely would have been in a state of heat death (or low entropy) stars, (and thermal vents) would have not existed unless the initial entropy of the universe was low.

Roger Penrose calculetaed the odds of having a universe with low entropy (like ours) at 10^123


We know that the initial entropy of the universe was low, we know that stars (and thermal vents) could have only excised if the initial entropy was low, the only assumption that I am making is that life cannot exist without stars, which seems a reasonable assumption.

 

[exchemist]

The point that I am making ins that statistically speaking the universe most likely would have been in a state of heat death (or low entropy) stars, (and thermal vents) would have not existed unless the initial entropy of the universe was low.

Roger Penrose calculetaed the odds of having a universe with low entropy (like ours) at 10^123


We know that the initial entropy of the universe was low, we know that stars (and thermal vents) could have only excised if the initial entropy was low, the only assumption that I am making is that life cannot exist without stars, which seems a reasonable assumption.

This statement: "statistically speaking the universe most likely would have been in a state of heat death" only makes sense if your hypothesis is that there could have been an infinite number of alternative ways in which the universe could have started, all with different initial entropy values. Is that what you are contending?

(The assumption you make that life could not exist without stars is misplaced, as I pointed out in post 96.)

 

[leroy]

This statement: "statistically speaking the universe most likely would have been in a state of heat death" only makes sense if your hypothesis is that there could have been an infinite number of alternative ways in which the universe could have started, all with different initial entropy values. Is that what you are contending?

(The assumption you make that life could not exist without stars is misplaced, as I pointed out in post 96.)

Yes that is what I (and the multiverse hypothesis concede) all those who explain the FT with a chance hypothesis (ether mutiverse or something else) concede that point.

Other potential alternatives would be

1 Deny FT (claim that life would have existed eve if the entropy would have been high)

2 Claim physical necessity (claim that some mechanism “forced” an initial low entropy)

Universes without stars but with Thermal vents, and brown dwarfs also require relatively low entropy, but not as low as a universe with millions of stars and galaxies.

What the BB Paradox states is that for every universe like ours there would be 10^63 universes with say just 1 brown dwarf and 1 planet. The implication is that it would be vastly more likely to have an observer that lives in a universe with 1 brown dwarft and that is hallucinating or dreaming that he lives in a universe with many stars than an observer that actually lives in a universe like ours.


The conclusion would be that given that you observe a universe with many stars, you are likely to be an Alien who lives in a simpler universe, that probably lives in a psychiatric hospital, who is having hallucinations about living in a big universe with many stars and galaxies, (this conversation and this forum would also be part of the hallucination)

Obviously this conclusion would only apply if you grant FT and if you believe that FT happened by chance

 

[leroy]

Yes, but the issue is that you can't demonstrate the possibility of any of them, thus you cannot describe them as necessarily possible in this way.

1 & 2: These are both a given based on the OP, I've been sure to stress this. I do not actually agree that the universe is fine-tuned or that multiverse explains why, even if it does happen to be fine-tuned. Please understand I am suspending disbelief to participate in the question. It doesn't mean I cannot present an argument to either of these points, it just means I won't be presenting one as a courtesy.

#3 is actually two assumptions in one. First that life is frequent in the multiverse, second that intelligent life is frequent in the multiverse. Life is not frequent in our universe. Intelligent life is not frequent among life. You must assume both of these in order to get to #4.

So, my statement is this:

3a: Life IS NOT frequent in this universe, therefore IS NOT frequent in the multiverse either.
3b: Intelligence (human scale or better) IS NOT frequent in life, therefore IS NOT frequent even in the infrequent life in the multiverse either.

Both of these must be shown to be incorrect with a counter example of observable reality, such as I am showing you.



As I said, simulation is probable mathematically. Its not really something I believe, but from the perspective you present I can see how a simulated universe might hold water, given far fewer assumptions than 'artificial actual' universes.



I do not cater to the idea of 'burden of proof'. Its a non-argument.

Regardless if artificial universes are frequent or not is irrelevant as long as they are possible there would be potentially infinite artificial universes.

But ok let’s assume that only simulations are possible.

The multiverse hypothesis guaranties that some universes would be simulations, which means that according to this hypothesis, our universe might be a simulation.


If you make a few reasonable assumptions, one can even conclude that simulations are more frequent than natural occurring universes. Implying that the default conclusion should be that we live in a simulation. (some sort of intelligent design would still be true)

 

[Sir Doom]

Regardless if artificial universes are frequent or not is irrelevant as long as they are possible there would be potentially infinite artificial universes.

I disagree, the frequency of artificial universes would still be measurable even if there were infinite universes, thus anything that lessons the frequency of any particular phenomenon lessons its possibility from the hypothetical standpoint we are looking at it from.

But ok let’s assume that only simulations are possible.

No, lets just assume that simulations obey the principle you describe without anywhere near as many assumptions, as I've said. Because that's more accurate. There are already countless simulated universes just on this planet, and more are made daily.

The multiverse hypothesis guaranties that some universes would be simulations, which means that according to this hypothesis, our universe might be a simulation.

No, our actual universe guarantees that every universe besides this one that we've encountered has been simulated, which guarantees that simulated universes are far more frequent than actual ones. If there are more universes like ours with people at least as intelligent as us, then yes simulated universes are quite abundant in the multiverse as well. Again... assuming about 4 things instead of 8.

If you make a few reasonable assumptions, one can even conclude that simulations are more frequent than natural occurring universes. Implying that the default conclusion should be that we live in a simulation. (some sort of intelligent design would still be true)

Again, please do tell me the difference between an artificial-actual and an artificial-simulated universe? Until you do that, you are just chasing your tail on this. The simulation in the actual proves the actual is a simulation? You'll have to make that mean something. What is it about this universe that makes it both actual and simulated such that it proves itself simulated in its actualness.

 

[exchemist]

Yes that is what I (and the multiverse hypothesis concede) all those who explain the FT with a chance hypothesis (ether mutiverse or something else) concede that point.

Other potential alternatives would be

1 Deny FT (claim that life would have existed eve if the entropy would have been high)

2 Claim physical necessity (claim that some mechanism “forced” an initial low entropy)

Universes without stars but with Thermal vents, and brown dwarfs also require relatively low entropy, but not as low as a universe with millions of stars and galaxies.

What the BB Paradox states is that for every universe like ours there would be 10^63 universes with say just 1 brown dwarf and 1 planet. The implication is that it would be vastly more likely to have an observer that lives in a universe with 1 brown dwarft and that is hallucinating or dreaming that he lives in a universe with many stars than an observer that actually lives in a universe like ours.


The conclusion would be that given that you observe a universe with many stars, you are likely to be an Alien who lives in a simpler universe, that probably lives in a psychiatric hospital, who is having hallucinations about living in a big universe with many stars and galaxies, (this conversation and this forum would also be part of the hallucination)

Obviously this conclusion would only apply if you grant FT and if you believe that FT happened by chance

I see. I must say this strikes me as all rather pointless.

We have evidence of only one universe and that evidence points to it having started from a small, hot and dense state and having expanded and cooled thereafter. There is by now a fair body of associated theory, which seems to be coherent and in accord with observation. That is as far as the science can get us.

There is no evidence as to why the universe apparently started in this way, as opposed to some other. Since we have no evidence for, nor any reliable insight into, the mechanisms of creation, we have no basis for thinking there were alternatives from which a choice was made, to which we can assign a "probability".

This is tendentious thinking, couched in terminology slanted in favour of there being a choice-making creator.

 

[paarsurrey]

Absolute proof against the multiverse

Is it even a religious issue, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

I see. I must say this strikes me as all rather pointless.

We have evidence of only one universe and that evidence points to it having started from a small, hot and dense state and having expanded and cooled thereafter. There is by now a fair body of associated theory, which seems to be coherent and in accord with observation. That is as far as the science can get us.

There is no evidence as to why the universe apparently started in this way, as opposed to some other. Since we have no evidence for, nor any reliable insight into, the mechanisms of creation, we have no basis for thinking there were alternatives from which a choice was made, to which we can assign a "probability".

This is tendentious thinking, couched in terminology slanted in favour of there being a choice-making creator.

One can calculate all the possible conditions in which matter/energy could have existed and divided by the possible conditions that would allow the existence of stars (or something equivalent like thermal vents) the number would turn out to be very, very small

Sure you can always argue for a naturalistic hypothesis that doesn’t rely on chance, to explain the low entropy of the universe, but this hypothesis are also loaded with problems.