Anti-Materialist

Well - we don't know if other universes are sterile or not.


If we were to find a bunch of other universes, and they all looked sterile - and I don't just mean that we didn't see life at first glance, I mean that they had properties such that life could never form - then that would be an argument against a creator.


If - and this is a big if - you buy into the fine tuning argument, then you are left with choosing between a creator, or many worlds.

Or both...


So, which is the unnecessary entity(s) - the creator(s), or the many worlds? It only takes one creator, but it takes a near infinite number of universes. Universes are finite, but they are big. (according to a sample of 1 out of 1 universes, anyway) Where would the stuff to create all those near infinite universes come from? Solutions that require numbers of components that approach infinity are less satisfying to me.

Think of it this way...

Something created our universe. The big question is whether or not that something possessed intelligence. Lettuce call that something COR (Cause Of Reality). COR could be quantum foam, or a non-entropic time loop, or something we haven't thought of yet. Does COR possess intelligence?

If COR produced a universe that was the analagous equivalent of the XYZ-7347 license plate - we wouldn't suspect intelligence. (Nor would we be around to suspect intelligence). But that didn't happen. COR produced a universe that is the analagous equivalent of "We Live" on a license plate. It also produced us to remark upon what a brilliant license plate it is.

The alternative to COR possessing intelligence is that COR does not possess intelligence, and instead it produces all possible universes, including the few with the right settings to produce life. However, that requires a number of universes that approaches infinity. This seems like a lot more unnecessary entities than just allowing for the possibility that COR possesses intelligence.

And...

This would not in any way prove that there is a kind yet merciless God as described in the Judeo-Christian mythology. It would also not prove that there is life after death, or re-incarnation, or anomalous human/machine interaction.

It'll take a lot more research to prove or disprove those things.

Chimp

If we start with the first interrogative "why existence?"

Well, existence ..."exists"

It becomes an initial assumption. The most basic starting point{metaphysically speaking of course } It must be accepted as a given or you could say that God is "beyond existence" but then you must admit that God does not exist.

So the universes that are well ordered with the laws and constants to permit "life" TO exist, have the spatio temporal coherence and order, analogous to a universal computer or a universal "mind". Every possible universe that can exist MUST exist. An extension of the Copernican principle i.e. their is no center to existence. Existence must be accepted as the most basic...assumption. Then it becomes a matter of probability. Of all possible universes, certain universes will have gods, or what primitive peoples could interpret as being gods or a supreme being.

I say that those universes that have the correct constants and laws would be the "self aware" universes(quantum computers).

Order from chaos.

Chimp

JB01

This is a slight side-track, but does the 2LoT really rule out an infinite causal chain?

As I understand it, that law is statistical in nature - it describes the states in which you should expect to find a system with many degrees of freedom an overwhelming majority of the time. But fluctuations about the mean state are also predicted, with larger fluctuations being less likely than smaller ones.

If we're taking the hypothesis of an infinite amount of time seriously (and literally), then wouldn't we expect fluctuations to occur in which entropy is reversed to an arbitrary extent, even if they only happen every n years, where n is some inconceivably gargantuan number? Given a literally infinite amount of time, wouldn't they pretty much have to occur eventually? Or is my reasoning off?

Jesse

Yes, but the problem with this is that smaller entropy fluctuations are always far more common than larger ones, so anthropic arguments won't explain why the entire observable universe is at equally low entropy--the vast majority of intelligent observers produced by such fluctuations would be the product of much smaller low-entropy regions in a sea of high entropy (not to mention any such observer should conclude it's most likely that the current moment is the lowest point in the entropy fluctuation, and that any memories the observer has of a lower-entropy past are probably false).

Autonemesis

The world-view that describes the universe as "little" and "lonely" is chock-full of unstated assumptions.