2 of 27
2
The Fine-Tuned Universe and the Multiverse ?
Posted: 21 January 2010 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
scepticeye - 21 January 2010 06:16 AM

The multiverse hypothesis does not belong, in my opinion, in the realms of Science at all.  It is 100% hypothesis and 100% silly, and 0% evidence or potential evidence or logic.

100% hypothesis and 0% evidence yes, but it is far form being 100% silly and 0% logical. But keep repeating it if you need to. (Additionally, swaying back and forth while repeating it may help.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17

100% silly and 0% logical .. I see no evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you have some ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

You don’t need evidence to show that something is (or may be) logical. It is logical to assume that there may be life on other planets even though we have no evidence to support such claim. The idea (no, I wouldn’t call it even a theory) of multiverse offers a plausible explanation of why the universe appears fine-tuned. Once again, it is far from being 0% logical. Maybe we can both keep repeating our opinion and see who lasts longer: I say it’s logical…  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
George - 21 January 2010 08:00 AM

You don’t need evidence to show that something is (or may be) logical. It is logical to assume that there may be life on other planets even though we have no evidence to support such claim.

Of course we need evidence to justify logic. Otherwise it is just a fantasy. There is ample logic for postulating life on other plants because we have detected the ingredients of life throughout the solar system and outside among other things. There is no evidence for any logic in the idea of a multiverse that I know of or that you offer.

The idea (no, I wouldn’t call it even a theory) of multiverse offers a plausible explanation of why the universe appears fine-tuned. Once again, it is far from being 0% logical. Maybe we can both keep repeating our opinion and see who lasts longer: I say it’s logical…  grin

So you are suggesting now that the Multiverse idea is one that supports the Fine Turning of our own ? I have never heard this and it makes absolutely no sense except in the intelligent design fantasy world. In what way does the idea of a multiverse in any way ‘explain’ the marvelous happenstance of a fine tuned universe just for us precious humans ?

It is disappointing that you find the process of discussion so difficult. Discussion involves expressing opinions through a process. This process normally involves multiple responses, often with different angles or additional content. Otherwise all discussion of a topic will consist on one statement for each person. A bit of a bore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

What I find “a bit of a bore” is the fact that you open a new thread to discuss the topic of a multiverse just so that you can keep repeating it is 0% silly and 0% logical. Is that what your idea of “multiple responses” is?

Regarding the extraterrestrial life, it would still be logical to suspect that life is to be find elsewhere in our universe even if we had zero evidence for such claim. Indeed I disagree that the possibility of extraterrestrial life is supported by any evidence at all.

The multiverse idea supports the idea of a fine-tuned universe as much as the idea of natural selection supports the idea that our eye was designed. It has nothing to do with teleology. The multiverse “theory” doesn’t explain that multiverse exists so that there can be a fine-tuned universe, just like natural selection doesn’t exist so that an eye can exist. No, it’s precisely the other way around when it comes to the eye, and it can also be the case as to why we have specific type of physical laws in our universe.

[ Edited: 21 January 2010 08:46 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14
George - 21 January 2010 08:42 AM

The multiverse idea supports the idea of a fine-tuned universe as much as the idea of natural selection supports the idea that our eye was designed. It has nothing to do with teleology. The multiverse “theory” doesn’t explain that multiverse exists so that there can be a fine-tuned universe, just like natural selection doesn’t exist so that an eye can exist. No, it’s precisely the other way around when it comes to the eye, and it can also be the case why we have the type of physical laws in our universe.

Well, but there’s no suggestion (at least none apart from a real fringe) that these universes are somehow “competing”, and reproducing based on the outcome of competition. So the case of a multiverse is quite different, crucially different, from the case of evolution. So I also don’t see what it has to do with “fine tuning”.

I disagree that multiverse-type speculation is pointless or irrational. (I wouldn’t use the term “illogical”, since that has a very specific meaning). It is clearly speculation, but much of what eventually became science was originally speculation. The multiverses of QM are, I have been told, interpretations that are completely consistent with the data. Clearly, they aren’t the only interpretations going, but depending on the ontological, causal, etc., assumptions one wants to make, they could be the best ones. Or not.

Anyhow, just as advanced mathematics has no clear point to it other than the joy of rational investigation, I see nothing wrong with scientific or philosophical speculation per se.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
George - 21 January 2010 08:42 AM

What I find “a bit of a bore” is that fact that you open a new thread to discuss the topic of a multiverse just so that you can keep repeating it is 0% silly and 0% logical. Is that what your idea of “multiple responses” is?

You really don’t pay much attention to what you read at all.  I posted one post to start the thread five days ago and then I didn’t make any post whatsoever until my first post today. So much for that one….

Regarding the extraterrestrial life, it would still be logical to suspect that life is to be find elsewhere in our universe even if we had zero evidence for such claim. Indeed I disagree that the possibility of extraterrestrial life is supported by any evidence at all.

Having zero evidence to suspect something is the same predicament that deists ignore in their belief in a God. And I never said there was any evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life - I said there was evidence to postulate the possibility. A very different thing.

The multiverse idea supports the idea of a fine-tuned universe as much as the idea of natural selection supports the idea that our eye was designed.

Are you serious ?  And who was it that designed our eye ?  red face  and this has nothing to do with teleology ?  really ?

It has nothing to do with teleology. The multiverse “theory” doesn’t explain that multiverse exists so that there can be a fine-tuned universe, just like natural selection doesn’t exist so that an eye can exist. No, it’s precisely the other way around when it comes to the eye, and it can also be the case why we have specific type of physical laws in our universe.

Now you’ve lost me completely…. maybe someone else can follow that… hmmm but not me…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
scepticeye - 21 January 2010 08:17 AM

So you are suggesting now that the Multiverse idea is one that supports the Fine Turning of our own ? I have never heard this and it makes absolutely no sense except in the intelligent design fantasy world. In what way does the idea of a multiverse in any way ‘explain’ the marvelous happenstance of a fine tuned universe just for us precious humans ?

Very simply: that there are endless universes, where just by mere chance at least one supports stable and complex structures, and we live in such a one (necesarily). So we need no intelligent creator for the fine tuning.

From your previous reactions I assume you did not read the Max Tegmark article. You do not have to agree with him, but it would make your reaction less hard.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14
GdB - 21 January 2010 09:26 AM

Very simply: that there are endless universes, where just by mere chance at least one supports stable and complex structures, and we live in such a one (necesarily). So we need no intelligent creator for the fine tuning.

Right, this I understand, but then there’s no “tuning”. Nothing’s being “tuned”; rather it’s that all these universes exist, and so ours does, too.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 21 January 2010 08:48 AM

Well, but there’s no suggestion (at least none apart from a real fringe) that these universes are somehow “competing”, and reproducing based on the outcome of competition. So the case of a multiverse is quite different, crucially different, from the case of evolution. So I also don’t see what it has to do with “fine tuning”.

Well yes, as I already said earlier, it is very different from biological natural selection. But that’s irrelevant. So what? So they don’t compete. Maybe there is an infinite number of universes.

I imagine an infinite number of rocks rolling down a hill. Each one of of these rocks will leave a different path as it rolls down. There is no competition here, but were one of the rocks to “hit something” in it s way that would result in creating intelligent life some few billion years ahead, it would appear to those being that that “historic hit of the rock” fine-tuned whatever came after it. That’s all.

[ Edited: 21 January 2010 09:39 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14
George - 21 January 2010 09:37 AM
dougsmith - 21 January 2010 08:48 AM

Well, but there’s no suggestion (at least none apart from a real fringe) that these universes are somehow “competing”, and reproducing based on the outcome of competition. So the case of a multiverse is quite different, crucially different, from the case of evolution. So I also don’t see what it has to do with “fine tuning”.

Well yes, as I already said earlier, it is very different from biological natural selection. But that’s irrelevant. So what? So they don’t compete. Maybe there is an infinite number of universes.

I imagine an infinite number of rocks rolling down a hill. Each one of of these rocks will leave a different path as it rolls down. There is no competition here, but were one of the rocks “hit something” in it s way that would result in creating intelligent life some few billion years ahead, it would appear to those being that that “historic hit of the rock” fine-tuned whatever came after it. That’s all.

Hmm ... that’s a very misleading use of the phrase “fine tuning”, IMO.

The process you outline is different from biological natural selection in a way that eliminates “natural selection”. There is no “selection for” certain outcomes or universes in the way that there was “selection for” harder shells in turtles. So there is no “tuning” in any sense.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 21 January 2010 09:43 AM

Hmm ... that’s a very misleading use of the phrase “fine tuning”, IMO.

Of course. I never said I believed that the universe was fine-tuned. It’s just that it may look like that from our perspective. 

dougsmith - 21 January 2010 09:43 AM

The process you outline is different from biological natural selection in a way that eliminates “natural selection”. There is no “selection for” certain outcomes or universes in the way that there was “selection for” harder shells in turtles. So there is no “tuning” in any sense.

Maybe natural selection doesn’t exist then. Maybe we evolve because atoms “roll down the hill” for their own “atomic reasons” but to us it looks like the process of natural selection. Maybe it’s an illusion, just like free will and everything else around us.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14
George - 21 January 2010 09:56 AM
dougsmith - 21 January 2010 09:43 AM

The process you outline is different from biological natural selection in a way that eliminates “natural selection”. There is no “selection for” certain outcomes or universes in the way that there was “selection for” harder shells in turtles. So there is no “tuning” in any sense.

Maybe natural selection doesn’t exist then. Maybe we evolve because atoms “roll down the hill” for their own “atomic reasons” but to us it looks like the process of natural selection. Maybe it’s an illusion, just like free will and everything else around us.

Huh?

I just outlined how natural selection works, and you respond by saying, “maybe it doesn’t work, then”?

And as I’ve argued many times here, free will is not an illusion. You’re really losing me here, George.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Ah, I’ve lost myself, Doug,...  confused

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 21 January 2010 09:43 AM

The process you outline is different from biological natural selection in a way that eliminates “natural selection”.

You are absolutely right and I am now embarrassed to recognize I lost any sense of what I was arguing for. I’ll never learn…  downer

Sorry, scepticeye, to have made all this mess in your thread.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 27
2