Absolute proof against the multiverse

[shunyadragon]

Science assumes that you exist, that there is a physical world, that the tools (telescopes, microscopes, test tubes etc..) exist, that your brain is reliable etc. all those are philosophical assumptions that you make before doing any experiment.

Actually science works very well if our entire physical existence is an illusion or even a computer program, or a hologram projected by aliens. The only assumption remains that whatever our physical existence is it is uniform and predicable in space and time.

 

[Dell]

If you believe in eternal God in a heaven you are subscribing to the idea of a multiverse by default.

 

[Sir Doom]

Actually science works very well if our entire physical existence is an illusion or even a computer program, or a hologram projected by aliens. The only assumption remains that whatever our physical existence is it is uniform and predicable in space and time.

This, in essence (and in my opinion) is the best rebuttal to any and all solipsistic notions. Projection, illusion, dream, simulation, artificial or natural; science has been, is, and will remain the best way to discover, explain and utilize the properties of reality. If anything, we will refine the method as time progresses. Abandoning it is simply off the table.

 

[leroy]

Actually science works very well if our entire physical existence is an illusion or even a computer program, or a hologram projected by aliens. .

How do you know that?

 

[leroy]

I don't believe that is implicit, but I believe your point is demonstrated regardless (because some of the below is not unlikely at all) so I will leave that aside.



Simulations exist demonstrably within this universe. So, yes on simulations, but no on 'actual'. That is an incredible stretch of the term 'possible'. We don't really know how this one came to be, how could we suggest that it might be an artificially reproducible phenomenon? Science fiction often speaks of 'reversing gravity' but there is nothing about gravity that suggests that is a possibility, thus it is not necessarily on the list of possible things that might exist in other universes (or ours for that matter).



Yes, all of the simulations. Any others? Well, who can say?



Granted. Unless, it was incredibly difficult, time or resource consuming, economically deficit, dangerous, immoral, irresponsible or any otherwise terrible idea in which case the intelligence simply doesn't do it regardless of how possible it is. Of course we don't even know if it's possible, so who can say what 'making an actual universe' does to the ones that are here already? It could be monumentally catastrophic and typically result in the destruction if the 'parent' universe, for example. What might that do to what's 'possible'?



Also, granted. IF I concede that the universe is 'fine-tuned' AND I concede to 'artificial actual universes' being possible AND I concede that this universe IS NOT a simulation THEN.

That's a lot of IFs.

Anyway, a few questions:

A: What does a 'roughly tuned' universe look like?

1: What does an 'untuned' universe look like?

And finally: Please tell me the difference between 'artificial' and 'simulated'. That's one I really don't get. Wouldn't the fact that it's artificial also classify it immediately as a simulation?

With artificial universe I mean a created universe (ether a simulation or an actual universe)

In short the only point that I am making is that if you adopt a hypothesis that provides potentially infinite probabilistic resources (like the multiverse hypothesis) there would still be intelligent beings that create artificial universes, meaning that even by granting that we live in a multiverse, there wouldn’t be any warranty that our universe was not designed.

 

[leroy]

There are a lot of highly dubious statements here.

How can we "prove" the entropy of the universe is "low"? Low compared to what?

How can we "prove" that life as we know it could not exist in a universe of "high" entropy?

I struggle to see what these assertions can mean, let alone how they could be tested. Can you explain?

1 Stars can only exists in universe with low entropy (fact)

2 Our universe (at least the observable universe) has many stars and galaxies (fact)

3 Life as we know it, can’t exist without stars (reasonable assumption)

4 A state with high entropy is statistically more probable than a state with low entropy, (fact)

This is what is meant when we say that the initial low entropied state of the universe is finely tuned.

If you grant 1,2,3,4 you grant the FT of the universe with respect to the entropy.

…

My central argument is that in a multiverse Boltzmann Brains (BB) would be vastly more abundant than actual universes with low entropy, because BB can exist in universes with high entropy.

A BB could have an illusion and imagine itself as being a living thing that lives inside a body and that imagines that it is observing a universe with low entropy. These BB would be more abundant that “normal” observers that live in a universe with actual low entropy.

Therefore by invoking the multiverse anthropic principle, you should conclude that you are a BB.

 

[leroy]

This, in essence (and in my opinion) is the best rebuttal to any and all solipsistic notions. Projection, illusion, dream, simulation, artificial or natural; science has been, is, and will remain the best way to discover, explain and utilize the properties of reality. If anything, we will refine the method as time progresses. Abandoning it is simply off the table.

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.

 

[exchemist]

1 Stars can only exists in universe with low entropy (fact)

2 Our universe (at least the observable universe) has many stars and galaxies (fact)

3 Life as we know it, can’t exist without stars (reasonable assumption)

4 A state with high entropy is statistically more probable than a state with low entropy, (fact)

This is what is meant when we say that the initial low entropied state of the universe is finely tuned.

If you grant 1,2,3,4 you grant the FT of the universe with respect to the entropy.

…

My central argument is that in a multiverse Boltzmann Brains (BB) would be vastly more abundant than actual universes with low entropy, because BB can exist in universes with high entropy.

A BB could have an illusion and imagine itself as being a living thing that lives inside a body and that imagines that it is observing a universe with low entropy. These BB would be more abundant that “normal” observers that live in a universe with actual low entropy.

Therefore by invoking the multiverse anthropic principle, you should conclude that you are a BB.

Where do you get the notion that stars can only exist in a universe with what you call "low" entropy? Stars will continue to exist for billions of years, regardless of the increase in entropy of the universe that occurs during this time. In fact it is reasonable to presume that new stars will continue to form until such time as there are no clouds of dust and gas containing appreciable hydrogen.

Is that what you mean by "high" entropy? A condition in which all the hydrogen has been used up? How does thinking about this lack of nuclear fuel in terms of entropy help?

I get the feeling you are labouring under some misconceptions concerning entropy and probability. A small amount of hot water has lower entropy than than a larger amount of warm water containing the same amount of heat (dS = dQ/T). But nobody would argue that the existence of freshly boiled kettles of water is therefore, somehow, inherently improbable.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that?

First you are committing the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

. . . do not need to know. As long as science predictably falsifies theories and hypothesis as the foundation fo science it does not make any difference if our physical existence is real or not, but . . .

. . . you may believe it is an illusion as many Hindus do, but Hindu scientist do not reach any different conclusions and predictions of theories and hypothesis than Western scientists do that believe our physical existence is real.

 

[shunyadragon]

With artificial universe I mean a created universe (ether a simulation or an actual universe).

Science would be indifferent to the possibility that we live in an artificial universe unless its existence could be falsified by a legitimate hypothesis.

In short the only point that I am making is that if you adopt a hypothesis that provides potentially infinite probabilistic resources (like the multiverse hypothesis) there would still be intelligent beings that create artificial universes, meaning that even by granting that we live in a multiverse, there wouldn’t be any warranty that our universe was not designed.[/QUOTE]

No, no warranty needed. The idea that there are 'still intelligent beings that create universes,' is an odd statement of hypothetical where there is no evidence, and a meaningless consideration.

 

[leroy]

Where do you get the notion that stars can only exist in a universe with what you call "low" entropy? Stars will continue to exist for billions of years, regardless of the increase in entropy of the universe that occurs during this time. In fact it is reasonable to presume that new stars will continue to form until such time as there are no clouds of dust and gas containing appreciable hydrogen.

Is that what you mean by "high" entropy? A condition in which all the hydrogen has been used up? How does thinking about this lack of nuclear fuel in terms of entropy help?

I get the feeling you are labouring under some misconceptions concerning entropy and probability. A small amount of hot water has lower entropy than than a larger amount of warm water containing the same amount of heat (dS = dQ/T). But nobody would argue that the existence of freshly boiled kettles of water is therefore, somehow, inherently improbable.

Even a bottle of Hot water has some atoms that are “cold” say below 0C a state of low entropy would be a state in which all the “cold atoms” come together and form an ice cube that emerges from the hot water. Obviously this is very improbable state, because there are many different arrangements in which cold atoms coexist with hot atoms, but only few combinations would produce ice.

Is that what you mean by "high" entropy? A condition in which all the hydrogen has been used up?

Yes that would be a consequence of increasing entropy.



in the future stars will die, and new stars will not be born because the entropy will be high. (allso called heat death)

 

[leroy]

First you are committing the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

That is a philosophical statement.


. .

. do not need to know. As long as science predictably falsifies theories and hypothesis as the foundation fo science it does not make any difference if our physical existence is real or not, but . . .

That is a philosophical statement.

. . .

but Hindu scientist do not reach any different conclusions

how do you know that?

....

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

 

[leroy]

Science would be indifferent to the possibility that we live in an artificial universe unless its existence could be falsified by a legitimate hypothesis..

Interesting, but irrelevant

No, no warranty needed. The idea that there are 'still intelligent beings that create universes,' is an odd statement of hypothetical where there is no evidence, and a meaningless consideration.

According to the multiverse hypothesis everything that is possible will happen every once I na while (even if it is very unlikely)

Given that it is possible to have intelligent creatures that would create artificial universes (ether simulations or actual universes) it follows that these creatures and these artificial universes would exist in a multiverse.

The point is that even if I grant that there is a multiverse with potentially infinite universes and even if I grant that this multiverse had a natural cause, there would not be any warranty that our universe is not artifitial.

 

[viole]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

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.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

I am sure that the God alternative has much more evidence for explaining the fine tuning. As if the fine tuning (a question begging sentence by itself) would deserve our time to explain it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

I am sure that the God alternative has much more evidence for explaining the fine tuning. As if the fine tuning (a question begging sentence by itself) would deserve our time to explain it.

Ciao

- viole

I disagree with any consideration of 'Fine Tuning' from the scientific perspectives, because it is speculative at best based on IF assumptions concerning possibilities of the range of constants and natural laws of other possible universes assuming we are in some way unique 'requiring 'Fine Tuning,'

It is possible that there is little variation in the possible constants and natural laws and our universe is not even statistically unique. Even if there was a 'possible wide range of constants and natural laws among all possible universes in a multiverse existence there is potentially billions of universes in this scenario, and no problem some would be universes like ours with billions of possible gallaxies with trillions of stars with possible intelligent life.

Therefore 'Fine Tuning' is not remotely required.

 

[exchemist]

Even a bottle of Hot water has some atoms that are “cold” say below 0C a state of low entropy would be a state in which all the “cold atoms” come together and form an ice cube that emerges from the hot water. Obviously this is very improbable state, because there are many different arrangements in which cold atoms coexist with hot atoms, but only few combinations would produce ice.





Yes that would be a consequence of increasing entropy.



in the future stars will die, and new stars will not be born because the entropy will be high. (allso called heat death)

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.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Justified in thinking it. Not necessarily accurate.

Of all the values that a thermometer could have shown it happened to show a value that corresponds to the actual temperature, this is obviously an example of fine tuning, and design would be the best explanation.

The thermometer is finely tuned. The things causing the temperature, not so much.

 

[Sir Doom]

With artificial universe I mean a created universe (ether a simulation or an actual universe)

In short the only point that I am making is that if you adopt a hypothesis that provides potentially infinite probabilistic resources (like the multiverse hypothesis) there would still be intelligent beings that create artificial universes, meaning that even by granting that we live in a multiverse, there wouldn’t be any warranty that our universe was not designed.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well why not? Justify your assertion why are Counterfactual conditionals (or “IF” statements as you call them) unfalsifiable?

One can say “I was late because there was traffic IF there would have not been traffic I wouldn’t be late.


The statement is valid and falsifiable even though it contains an “IF” one in principle can prove (or disprove) with a high degree of certainty that without traffic you would have arrived on time.

Not to mention that I already told you what would falsify the FT assumption.

from wikipedia [/quote]

Your reference describes 'fine tuning' as a proposition based on assumptions, and NOT a falsifiable hypothesis.


By you logic we most reject all those areas of knowledge, just because you don’t like counterfactuals (or IF statements as you call them)[/QUOTE]

Regardless IF statements that cannot be falsified by scientific methods with objective verifiable evidence, would not produce consistent predictable results, and most counterfactorials would not qualify, unless they can be used in coordination with objective verifiable evidence as in the following.

From: Counterfactual conditional - Wikipedia
Within empirical testing
The counterfactual conditional is the basis of experimental methods for establishing causality in the natural and social sciences, e.g., whether taking antibiotics helps cure bacterial infection. For every individual, u, there is a function that specifies the state of u's infection under two hypothetical conditions: had u taken antibiotic and had u not taken antibiotic. Only one of these states can be observed in any instance, since they are mutually exclusive. The overall effect of antibiotic on infection is defined as the difference between these two states, averaged over the entire population. If the treatment and control groups are selected at random, the effect of antibiotic can be estimated by comparing the rates of recovery in the two groups.


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

 

[shunyadragon]

Basically what the paper states is that the universe is FT because that is the way things are (no explanation required)


Is that your view?

Explanation required is a falsifiable hypothesis, and not a proposition based on IF assumptions as described in wikipedia.

Our universe is simply as it is regardless of whether it is fine tuned or not.