Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 07-01-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
Dude - that was a really good argument!

Here is one that is a wee bit less complex. Suppose Feynman's license plate had said "Spank-me". He would be inclined to think that license plate was designed - because it has an obvious purpose. It advertises to the world that the owner of the vehicle enjoys a good spanking now and then.

By analogy, a universe that gives rise to complex molecules that eventually evolve into life - when many many other possibilities could also exist - could be reasonably thought to have been made that way on purpose.

Sure - the "spank-me" license plate could be on accident - it just seems unlikely. The same goes for a life generating universe, in my opinion.

But unlike anthropic coincidences, seeing a "spank-me" licence plate can't also be explained in terms of multiple outcomes + the anthropic principle, so there's an important difference there. In the example I used, the buggy in vitro fertilization machine, there would only be a person around to think about the probabilities if the machine had a successful run, so that leads the person to conclude that the machine had a lot of runs rather than very few, not that there was a single run that was tampered with by supernatural forces.

if there was anything about the universe that seemed designed but was not necessary for the existence of intelligent life (like if you wrote some physical constant in binary and treated it as an ASCII code, and it turned out to give the exact text of the Koran or something), then that would be a strong argument for a designer. But life-generating properties can equally well be used to support some sort of multiverse model.

Anti-Materialist · 07-01-2003, 07:34 PM

Ah - but in a multiverse model, there needs to be a number of universes that approaches infinity. That's an awful lot of universes. Intelligent design seems a simpler explanation than a near-infinite number of universes.

Where would all the stuff to form or define these near-infinite number of universes come from?

And then you have to ask, how did the multiverse come to be? These universes probably have some sort of connecting structure, if they come from the same source. Who or what created that structure?

And, if there are other universes, then they would have their own time streams - thus you would have multiple dimensions of time, and you would have a dimension of time that encompasses the start and end of universes as well. Thus, some of these extra dimensions of time would be parallel or perpindicular to our time dimension, and they would all be nested inside the outer time dimension.

When you start thinking about nested dimensions of time, you get into some pretty crazy cause and effect possibilities - including something that causes itself.

If there is a creator (which is not necessarily the same thing as an all powerful God as envisioned by many people), that creator would have to operate in the outer time dimension(s).

Hmmm...

or....

perhaps we don't exist! That would seem to be the most logical conclusion from all of this.

Corona688 · 07-01-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
Intelligent design seems a simpler explanation than a near-infinite number of universes.

No, no it's not, because it invokes an all-powerful omnipotent unexplainable unobservable 'creator'. This is a useless presupposition that can neither be supported nor denied. Not to mention that aforementioned deity, being powerful and complex enough to poof a universe into existence, would need a creator by your logic! Infinite recursion! Wouldn't you much rather just say 'I don't know' than pull a deity out of nowhere?

Jesse · 07-01-2003, 08:13 PM

Anti-Materialist:
Ah - but in a multiverse model, there needs to be a number of universes that approaches infinity. That's an awful lot of universes. Intelligent design seems a simpler explanation than a near-infinite number of universes.

I think a multiverse model is actually simpler theoretically than a single universe, even without an intelligent designer. A single universe will contain all sorts of arbitrary aspects which just have to sort of be taken as brute facts, while a multiverse that encompasses "all possible X's" (whether X represents 'universes with our exact laws of physics', 'universes with the same basic laws but varying constants', of even 'universes with any laws that can be described in terms of some mathematical rule') will contain no more information or arbitrariness than the basic description of "X" itself. Having all possibilities realized is more symmetrical than just having one possibility realized...which set do you think is "simpler", {13, 702, 1284} or {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}?

Based on historical experience, I'd also say that Occam's razor generally seems to be a useful guide when stated in terms of theoretical simplicity, but not when stated in terms of economizing the number of physical entities postulated by the theory; in terms of actual physical entities, the reverse is often true, with the more "extravagent" theories trouncing the "simpler" ones. Certainly it's quite extravagent to imagine that each star is a sun in its own right, in a vast universe in which our own solar system is just a tiny speck, while the old view that said the stars were just lights on a dome surrounding the earth required a lot less physical entities. But theoretically, the "each star is a separate sun" view is more economical. The same may be true of multiverse theories.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-02-2003, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
I challenge you guys to come up with anything about the nature of our reality that is inherently conflicting with the concept of a loving God.

Evolution. An absolutely incredibly nasty and wasteful way to make anything.

Ichneumon wasps.

Rickettsia prowazekii, which causes epidemic typhus.

Ebola Zaire.

Lion males eating the cubs of a deposed male.

Plasmodium falciparum.

Elephant seals battling for beach (and hence female) supremecy.

Neonatal ophthalmic gonococcal infection.

Hookworms.

Vibrio cholerae. Kills three children under five years old per minute.

Enough for now?

TTFN, Oolon

markfiend · 07-02-2003, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
When you start thinking about nested dimensions of time, you get into some pretty crazy cause and effect possibilities - including something that causes itself.

Which does away with the need for a "first cause" creator god.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2003, 07:34 PM	#42
Anti-Materialist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 87	Ah - but in a multiverse model, there needs to be a number of universes that approaches infinity. That's an awful lot of universes. Intelligent design seems a simpler explanation than a near-infinite number of universes. Where would all the stuff to form or define these near-infinite number of universes come from? And then you have to ask, how did the multiverse come to be? These universes probably have some sort of connecting structure, if they come from the same source. Who or what created that structure? And, if there are other universes, then they would have their own time streams - thus you would have multiple dimensions of time, and you would have a dimension of time that encompasses the start and end of universes as well. Thus, some of these extra dimensions of time would be parallel or perpindicular to our time dimension, and they would all be nested inside the outer time dimension. When you start thinking about nested dimensions of time, you get into some pretty crazy cause and effect possibilities - including something that causes itself. If there is a creator (which is not necessarily the same thing as an all powerful God as envisioned by many people), that creator would have to operate in the outer time dimension(s). Hmmm... or.... perhaps we don't exist! That would seem to be the most logical conclusion from all of this.

07-01-2003, 08:13 PM	#44
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Anti-Materialist: Ah - but in a multiverse model, there needs to be a number of universes that approaches infinity. That's an awful lot of universes. Intelligent design seems a simpler explanation than a near-infinite number of universes. I think a multiverse model is actually simpler theoretically than a single universe, even without an intelligent designer. A single universe will contain all sorts of arbitrary aspects which just have to sort of be taken as brute facts, while a multiverse that encompasses "all possible X's" (whether X represents 'universes with our exact laws of physics', 'universes with the same basic laws but varying constants', of even 'universes with any laws that can be described in terms of some mathematical rule') will contain no more information or arbitrariness than the basic description of "X" itself. Having all possibilities realized is more symmetrical than just having one possibility realized...which set do you think is "simpler", {13, 702, 1284} or {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}? Based on historical experience, I'd also say that Occam's razor generally seems to be a useful guide when stated in terms of theoretical simplicity, but not when stated in terms of economizing the number of physical entities postulated by the theory; in terms of actual physical entities, the reverse is often true, with the more "extravagent" theories trouncing the "simpler" ones. Certainly it's quite extravagent to imagine that each star is a sun in its own right, in a vast universe in which our own solar system is just a tiny speck, while the old view that said the stars were just lights on a dome surrounding the earth required a lot less physical entities. But theoretically, the "each star is a separate sun" view is more economical. The same may be true of multiverse theories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.