Fine-tuning argument: MultiUniverses vs God

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Fine-tuning argument: MultiUniverses vs God

Hello

 

Some theists, and even religious scientists state that the MultiUniverse theory (where there are "infinite" number of Universes, each of them are has its own tuning of cosmological constant, so one would be likely to find among these, at least, one life-frendly Universe)

explain the amazing and a priori improbable fine-tunning of our Universe by invoquing a lot of entities (ie, Universes), whereas theistic hypothesis starts from the Universe we observe and doesn't need to suppose an infinity of Universes.

Thus, Multiuniverse hypothesis is, compared to the theistic one, less parcimonious. So, the theistic hypothesis is the best explanation for fine-tuning.

 

What's your opinion?

 

 

Thank you


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the amazing and a

Quote:
the amazing and a priori improbable fine-tunning of our Universe

 

Before you examine the arguments for fine-tuning, you must establish that it is the case.  Given we don't have a complete set of knowledge regarding the universe, it's hard to argue that it is fine-tuned.  We hardly know anything about it, and you argue it's fine-tuned?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:Before

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Before you examine the arguments for fine-tuning, you must establish that it is the case.  Given we don't have a complete set of knowledge regarding the universe, it's hard to argue that it is fine-tuned.  We hardly know anything about it, and you argue it's fine-tuned?

QFT.

As it stands, the universe isn't as nearly "fine-tuned" as some would lead you to believe. It's like saying, "OMG! Isn't it just astounding that when you have two peaches, and someone gives you two more, you have *four* peaches! That's *exactly* like 2+2=4!"

Much of the rest of the "fine-tuned" argument really just says, "But if the gravitational constant were different, the universe would not exist!" Yes, it would not exist as we know it; however, if the gravitational constant and planck's constant changed together, it is very possible a different universe would exist, and it would be different creatures asking, "Isn't it amazing how we are here?"

The strawman of the cosmological argument is that we are the only possible universe -- not the only existing universe, but the only set of cosmological constants that will produce a working universe. This is false. So the argument is based not only on ignorance (as v4ultingbassist said), but on incorrect and misleading assumptions.

This doesn't even address the possibility of cosmological evolution such as proposed by Lee Smolin.

Nor does it address how a god could come to exist with such complexity and power sufficient enough to create a universe. If the universe is so infinitely improbably, what are the odds of a god existing capable of creating the universe?

No. Positing a god is not more parsimonious than simply saying, "It's great the universe is capable of producing us. We don't know why the universe exists in the exact configuration, but we may one day fully understand." That is not only the most parsimonious answer, but it is also the only intellectually honest answer. 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
No termina

termina wrote:

Hello

 

Some theists, and even religious scientists state that the MultiUniverse theory (where there are "infinite" number of Universes, each of them are has its own tuning of cosmological constant, so one would be likely to find among these, at least, one life-frendly Universe)

explain the amazing and a priori improbable fine-tunning of our Universe by invoquing a lot of entities (ie, Universes), whereas theistic hypothesis starts from the Universe we observe and doesn't need to suppose an infinity of Universes.

Thus, Multiuniverse hypothesis is, compared to the theistic one, less parcimonious. So, the theistic hypothesis is the best explanation for fine-tuning.

 

What's your opinion?

 

 

Thank you

 

 

                   Spellyn' chex:    friendly (O.E. Free man of the valley) ;   invoking  ( O.E. or O.G. call from the people - volks-folks),  parsimonious (Latin - cheep bastard - honest-).

 

 

                   As for the actual post,   who did the fine tuning?

 

 

                   As far as I know there is no power over me,   on this green earth then me.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
The theist counter-claim is intentionally dishonest, again...

Specifically, the Theist counter-claim is actually less parsimonious and dependent on a numbers game.

We have observed a universe, at least some of it, we have not observed any aspect of any god.  Thus no matter how many universes we ever had to invoke it would still be more parsimonious than a god because a god not only requires the invocation of an external entity, but it requires the invocation of a completely new and unobserved entity for which we have no information, data, or even a working, coherent definition.

In addition, the theist claims that a multiverse requires more assumptions than a god because it requires a whole mess of a lot of universes whereas the theist's claim only requires one god.  This is a mistake in equating the 'value' of one universe with one god, because one must remember that we have observed a universe, we have not observed a god.  Even if one were to invoke a billion universes, that is still less than one god, especially because the universe remains finite while most definitions of god place god as infinite.

And before the theist counter-claims that a finite multiverse would still run into the fine tuning problem, this is not the case, as even if the odds of a life-supporting universe were only 1 in Fifty bajillion squared, that still means a finite number of universes statistically WILL produce at least one life supporting universe.

 

Essentially, the theist counter-argument is like saying that fifty billion pennies are worth more than one infinity dollar bill.

 

And even beyond that it is intentionally misrepresenting not only the atheist multiverse claim, but the theist's own claim.  The heart of the Kalam argument is the claim that this is the ONLY possible explanation, thus merely by conceiving of a multiverse we have defeated the Kalam argument because we have conceived of a possible explanation.  It doesn't matter that neither idea has any evidentiary support, the mere existence of the multiverse hypothesis destroys the Kalam argument.  Our argument isn't that there must be a multiverse, and thus there is no god, it is simply that there could be a multiverse, and thus the Kalam is a poor argument for a god, and we should just wait for the evidence.

 

Is that really so much to ask for?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Ah, the multiverse and

Ah, the multiverse and parsimony wrapped up into one package.

 

OK, before we go farther, it would do well to make sure that we are clear on some basic terms.

 

Parsimony means assuming the least complicated of options.

 

Given a single universe (and ignoring the fine tuning shit for the moment), which is the greater parsimony: A single universe which happens to be just the way that it is or a single universe with a dude twiddling knobs on his universe making machine?

 

Past that, let me ask another question. If there is just one universe and no god, then what?

 

In that case, it seems to me that the universe happens to be what it is. The various numbers which we have found to be useful to describe the universe are what they are. There is nobody twiddling knobs on the auto-universe maker. Stuff is what it is and it is to be accepted as it exists. We live in the world that exists. There is nothing which is special and deserving of note.

 

Once again, how does parsimony lead from that to “there must be a god”?

 

What exactly is meant by the term “multiverse”?

 

Different branches of physics use the term to mean different things. To just throw the word out with no qualification which specifies what you are on about in intellectually promiscuous at best.

 

A rough analogy could be had from ichthyology (the study of fish). Not all fish are sharks. Not all sharks are great whites. Certainly, great white sharks are not neon tetras.

 

Simply saying “multiverse” with no qualification is about as honest as comparing a great white shark with a neon tetra. Sure, they both have gills and they both swim around. Pat that, there really is nothing in common between them.

 

But I digress.

 

how many planets are there?

 

If you asked Socrates to list them, you would get Sun, Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as the answer.

 

If you asked someone from about the 1870's, you would be told Mercury, Venus, Earth, Ceres, Vesta, Jupiter, Saturn and possibly Uranus. Neptune and Pluto were only added later. Ceres and Vesta were dropped from the list after Pluto was added.

 

If you asked the people who recently reclassified Pluto, it would depend on just when you asked them. They were considering putting Ceres and Vesta back on the list and possibly adding two new ones that had been recently discovered.

 

Prior to three weeks ago, there were about three dozen planets known around other stars. At the moment, we are waiting for the data to be released from the latest observations but we expect that there will be at least 400 new planets and posibly as many as 700 new planets getting added to the list.

 

Now, considering tat much, if one is a bit hazy on basic cosmology, well, don't try to figure out what you mean by multiverse until you can tell me what you actually mean by the term.

 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Parsimony, while a quality

Parsimony, while a quality to be sought, is hardly a law of the cosmos. Also, do not make the mistake of drawing a dichotomy between the multiverse and the fine tuned universe. There are more than these two possibilities, so proving one will not disprove the other and vice versa.

 

One can simply appeal to the many ways this universe could have turned out. If you're a Christian or believe in choice, you're committed to this. The fine-tuning argument says that the odds of the universe turning out as it did rather than some other way are infinitesimally small. The problem is the odds of it turning out in any other the other ways it could have turned out should have the same odds. Any of the potential configurations of the universe would be highly unlikley. Therefore there is nothing special about this particular configuration over any other.

 

On the other hand, if the universe could only have turned out one way, fine-tuning is no mystery. This is the way it had to be.

 

And though it's odd to suppose, what if the universe had only 5 different ways that it could have come out? Then the odds of it coming out as it did would be 1 in 5, hardly a miracle of fine-tuning.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:Nor

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Nor does it address how a god could come to exist with such complexity and power sufficient enough to create a universe. If the universe is so infinitely improbably, what are the odds of a god existing capable of creating the universe?
 

Yeah! How come such a complex universe sprout to existence from Nothing? What are the odds on the existence of some even more improbable super powerful God created it out of Nothing? The only reasonable answer is to say we don't even exist! This is an illusion, and I'm not really talking here! 

If only we could see what's beyond a black hole...

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:explain the

termina wrote:

explain the amazing and a priori improbable fine-tunning of our Universe by invoquing a lot of entities (ie, Universes), whereas theistic hypothesis starts from the Universe we observe and doesn't need to suppose an infinity of Universes.

Thus, Multiuniverse hypothesis is, compared to the theistic one, less parcimonious. So, the theistic hypothesis is the best explanation for fine-tuning.

What's your opinion?

A multiverse hypothesis is a hypothesis, but to date is not supported by evidence--but there is a possibility for empirical evidence as such, but even then I don't think there is any reason to invoke such things, because  fine tuning arguments create is-ought problems.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:Thus,

termina wrote:

Thus, Multiuniverse hypothesis is, compared to the theistic one, less parcimonious. So, the theistic hypothesis is the best explanation for fine-tuning.

What's your opinion?

More than ten years ago, the scientific fundamentalists summarily dismissed the "anthropic principle"....that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants of nature didn't require an explanation. "It's trivial. If the universe was not conducive to intelligent life, then we wouldn't be here. But we are and that's that...blah, blah, blah." Then came along "string theory" and now we have Leornard Susskind peddling the physicist's version  of Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" - namely, "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design."

I rather like Paul Davies' solution to the AP. He basically reworks John A. Wheeler's "participatory universe." (For more details, see "We Are Meant to Be Here" by Steve Paulson)

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead