An Open Question

[KCfromNC]

Without any means by which the existence of a multiverse can be either verified or falsified, the multiverse hypothesis is metaphysics, not physics

Dressing it up in scientific language, or leaving out the word God, does not automatically make something a scientific theory - even if it is put forward by somebody who is a scientist in his day job.

So? At the very least, it shows that god(s) is/are not the only option for explaining what we see, which shuts down the cosmological arguments for god cold.

And as I pointed out, the multiverse idea at least is coherent which makes it a far better candidate to explain anything than god(s).

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Even with all this arguing, the multiverse theory is just that, a theory, and not an accepted scientific fact.

A bit like god in that respect...

 

[lesliedellow]

So? At the very least, it shows that god(s) is/are not the only option for explaining what we see, which shuts down the cosmological arguments for god cold.

Really? Since when has evidence been a synonym for proof?

And as I pointed out, the multiverse idea at least is coherent which makes it a far better candidate to explain anything than god(s).

And, given the truly profligate number of other verses there would have to be for them to serve their intended purpose, I don't know how you figure that out. You need to bear in mind the size of the odds you are bent on shortening with an ad hoc hypothesis.

 

[KCfromNC]

Really? Since when has evidence been a synonym for proof?

Since the invention of science, if not earlier. Proof in anything other than the theoretical mathematical sense is basically "good enough evidence".

That being said, what does that have to do with my comment? God(s) were being thrown out as the only solution to a paradox. Other ideas were shown to be possible answers, demonstrating that the assumption of god isn't necessary to solve the problem. It's not a question of evidence here at all, just showing that there are other possibilities besides gods.

If we had evidence for any naturalistic idea it would win by default since there's absolutely none possible even in theory for god.

And, given the truly profligate number of other verses there would have to be for them to serve their intended purpose, I don't know how you figure that out. You need to bear in mind the size of the odds you are bent on shortening with an ad hoc hypothesis.

If multiverse ideas are right, the odds are pretty high. But so what? Even if they're low they only had to happen once. And if they didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to complain anyway, so it's a moot point.

 

[lesliedellow]

Since the invention of science, if not earlier. Proof in anything other than the theoretical mathematical sense is basically "good enough evidence".

Well, in the opinion of some, including three theoretical physicists, and two cosmologists I can think of, the odds against a universe with the properties this one has is "good enough" evidence for God. "Evidence can be persuassive without being conclusive," to quote one.

If multiverse ideas are right, the odds are pretty high. But so what? Even if they're low they only had to happen once. And if they didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to complain anyway, so it's a moot point.

They only had to happen once, and so far as we know, it did only happen once. So with odds of about 10 to the power of thirty against, that we should get a universe where chemistry is possible is a very lucky break indeed. If you wanted to shorten the odds to a billion to once against, you would need 10 to the power of 21 other universes to do the job (without evidence for the existence of even a single one of them).

I only need one God, and, what is more, he isn't a hypothesis specially cooked up for the job.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Somewhere you have lost me in your dazzling logic. If I didn'y know that the multiverse does not have the status of a scientific theory, I wouldn't have said so would I? But what is more to the point, there does not seem to be any means by which it could become one - other universes being unobservable in principle, even if they existed.

In very general terms, A scientific hypothesis is an idea without enough evidence to be considered true.... a scientific theory is a hypothesis with enough mutually supporting evidence to be considered proven as true.

In short, it can't be a hypothesis and a theory at the same time. One is an idea in an unproven state, the other is the idea in it's proven state.

The existence of a multiverse is a hypothesis because we lack evidence to conclude definitively that it actually exists. The existence of God likewise is a hypothesis.

The Theory of General Relativity, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Gravity are all examples of ideas that have enough evidence to have graduated from mere hypothesis to a full theory designation.

In strict scientific terms, saying "Multiverse Theory" is incorrect... at this point it's only a hypothesis. It may become a theory someday though.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In these discussions I tend to avoid the word proof. As is often said, proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

I'd say a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a set of data. A theory is something that explains all the current data and predicts results from that data.

If the theory successfully predicts, it is a successful theory. If it fails, it is a failed theory. Generally a theory fails when some it has made some prediction prior to our ability to test it and then subsequently, when we can test it, it fails.

A hypothesis becomes a theory as soon as it is tested and succeeds in all its predictions. If it succeeds in what it predicts, but fails to even predict things we think are connected, we might say it is incomplete.

The question then becomes whether we are justified in believing that something is true--what I think others have been calling "proven."

I think inasmuch as a theory explains everything we see with respect to some set of phenomena, we are justified in accepting it as true. But this is provisional. As soon as it is incomplete, we acknowledge that. As soon as it fails to predict, we deem it merely useful until something can account for the observations that the theory failed to predict or account for.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In these discussions I tend to avoid the word proof. As is often said, proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

I'd say a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a set of data. A theory is something that explains all the current data and predicts results from that data.

If the theory successfully predicts, it is a successful theory. If it fails, it is a failed theory. Generally a theory fails when some it has made some prediction prior to our ability to test it and then subsequently, when we can test it, it fails.

A hypothesis becomes a theory as soon as it is tested and succeeds in all its predictions. If it succeeds in what it predicts, but fails to even predict things we think are connected, we might say it is incomplete.

The question then becomes whether we are justified in believing that something is true--what I think others have been calling "proven."

I think inasmuch as a theory explains everything we see with respect to some set of phenomena, we are justified in accepting it as true. But this is provisional. As soon as it is incomplete, we acknowledge that. As soon as it fails to predict, we deem it merely useful until something can account for the observations that the theory failed to predict or account for.

You are correct, that's why I made it clear I was talking in very general terms.... technically nothing is considered "proven" in science, as we must always remain open minded to finding new evidence that may better our understanding of a topic. However theories operate essentially as something that's been accepted as true.

So for someone unaware of the difference between a hypothesis and theory, it's a good way to distinguish the two.

 

[Non sequitur]

In these discussions I tend to avoid the word proof. As is often said, proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

I'd say a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a set of data. A theory is something that explains all the current data and predicts results from that data.

If the theory successfully predicts, it is a successful theory. If it fails, it is a failed theory. Generally a theory fails when some it has made some prediction prior to our ability to test it and then subsequently, when we can test it, it fails.

A hypothesis becomes a theory as soon as it is tested and succeeds in all its predictions. If it succeeds in what it predicts, but fails to even predict things we think are connected, we might say it is incomplete.

The question then becomes whether we are justified in believing that something is true--what I think others have been calling "proven."

I think inasmuch as a theory explains everything we see with respect to some set of phenomena, we are justified in accepting it as true. But this is provisional. As soon as it is incomplete, we acknowledge that. As soon as it fails to predict, we deem it merely useful until something can account for the observations that the theory failed to predict or account for.

While I agree, the problem I always find is, I have never (or doubt I will) hear, "The theory of God has been shown, and tested, so we are justified in believing it to be true".

More likely, "God has been proven, by he being the necessary first cause!"

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Well, in the opinion of some, including three theoretical physicists, and two cosmologists I can think of, the odds against a universe with the properties this one has is "good enough" evidence for God. "Evidence can be persuassive without being conclusive," to quote one.




They only had to happen once, and so far as we know, it did only happen once. So with odds of about 10 to the power of thirty against, that we should get a universe where chemistry is possible is a very lucky break indeed. If you wanted to shorten the odds to a billion to once against, you would need 10 to the power of 21 other universes to do the job (without evidence for the existence of even a single one of them).

I only need one God, and, what is more, he isn't a hypothesis specially cooked up for the job.

1, where are you getting this math from? Sounds more like your spewing rubbish in order to look like you know what you're talking about. Please don't invent figures.

2. The multiverse theory isn't "cooked up specifically for the job". It originated in Sci-Fi novels, and the possibility was examined.

 

[lesliedellow]

1, where are you getting this math from? Sounds more like your spewing rubbish in order to look like you know what you're talking about. Please don't invent figures.

When the fine tuning of the fundamental constants was first being commented upon, 10 to the power of thirty was a number being quoted as the odds against a universe where chemistry was possible arising by chance. The rest is mathematics as elementary as it comes.

2. The multiverse theory isn't "cooked up specifically for the job". It originated in Sci-Fi novels, and the possibility was examined.

Nothing had been heard about it since Plato until the fine tuning of the fundamental constants was noticed. Embarrassed by the inference everybody was making, atheists had to find some way out, so Plato's speculation was suddenly back in fashion.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Nothing had been heard about it since Plato until the fine tuning of the fundamental constants was noticed. Embarrassed by the inference everybody was making, atheists had to find some way out, so Plato's speculation was suddenly back in fashion.

You seem to believe atheists are embarrassed by our beliefs. No. We really aren't. In fact most (myself NOT included) mock people in religions for their ignorance. Please do not make false accusations, the mind has a little thing we call 1st person infallibility. You cannot tell others what they are thinking. We are not embarrassed, or insecure in our position. At all. End of.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When the fine tuning of the fundamental constants was first being commented upon, 10 to the power of thirty was a number being quoted as the odds against a universe where chemistry was possible arising by chance. The rest is mathematics as elementary as it comes.

And such studies are flawed. Statistics and probabilities are calculated from observed data... since we have no observed data from anything outside of this universe, we really have no idea what the probability of things being any other way is.

It's quite possible the "fine tuning" we currently see, is the only possible way it could have turned out.

Nothing had been heard about it since Plato until the fine tuning of the fundamental constants was noticed. Embarrassed by the inference everybody was making, atheists had to find some way out, so Plato's speculation was suddenly back in fashion.

What exactly are we embarrassed about?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And such studies are flawed. Statistics and probabilities are calculated from observed data... since we have no observed data from anything outside of this universe, we really have no idea what the probability of things being any other way is.

It's quite possible the "fine tuning" we currently see, is the only possible way it could have turned out.



What exactly are we embarrassed about?

I've always been fascinated with people who can't see the problem with the fine tuning argument. It reminds me of the "but it goes to 11" scene in Spinal Tap...

 

[lesliedellow]

And such studies are flawed. Statistics and probabilities are calculated from observed data... since we have no observed data from anything outside of this universe, we really have no idea what the probability of things being any other way is.

Theoretical physicists can quite easily design "toy" universes on the back of envelopes, and then see what the modified constants imply. That is where the figure comes from.

It's quite possible the "fine tuning" we currently see, is the only possible way it could have turned out.

See above. If other universes can exist as mathematical abstractions there is no reason to suppose that one of them might not have existed in reality.

What exactly are we embarrassed about?

One does not for long have to listen to the new atheists to know that, for them, scientists are the high priests of the new atheism. So to have those same scientists saying that the evidence can be construed as pointing to the existence of God was a bit embarrassing. After all, they are all the while asking for "evidence", safe (as they THINK) in the knowledge that none is to be had.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

One does not for long have to listen to the new atheists to know that, for them, scientists are the high priests of the new atheism. So to have those same scientists saying that the evidence can be construed as pointing to the existence of God was a bit embarrassing. After all, they are all the while asking for "evidence", safe (as they THINK) in the knowledge that none is to be had.

No sane scientist of any renown claims that there is any evidence leading to Gods existence as you claim here. And what on earth are you on about? We don't see scientists as "high preists", we can just clearly see that despite all the different religions on earth, there isn't a single factual justification for any of them. The bible is rife with contradictions, space and its formation depicts evidence in support of the big bang theory. The earth is NOT the centre of the universe, and considering we are supposedly God's only children, its fairly lacking in that respect. We have absolutely no reason to disbelieve in other life developing on other planets. Admittedly we do not know the cause of reason of first life's development, but this causes us no embarrassment whatsoever, we didn't understand electricity until the 1880's, simply because we hadn't advanced enough to understand it. Does it bother us that we can't create hover boards and perpetual energy? No. We are not a perfect race. We do not know everything, but everything we DO know has a simple, logical, material cause.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Theoretical physicists can quite easily design "toy" universes on the back of envelopes, and then see what the modified constants imply. That is where the figure comes from.

So its obviously amazingly easy to design a universe, why would we need a God to make one if its so amazingly simplistic to you? Surely if we could perfect the maths here and now, we shouldn't have any problem creating universes and life.

OH WAIT. Thats amazingly stupid! We can't create universes, because we can't "quite easily design" them. You are contradicting your beliefs with pathetic attempts to insult atheists.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Theoretical physicists can quite easily design "toy" universes on the back of envelopes, and then see what the modified constants imply. That is where the figure comes from.

See above. If other universes can exist as mathematical abstractions there is no reason to suppose that one of them might not have existed in reality.

You realize that what you're saying is actually shooting your argument in the foot... right?

 

[lesliedellow]

No sane scientist of any renown claims that there is any evidence leading to Gods existence as you claim here.

Richard Dawkins.

 

[lesliedellow]

You realize that what you're saying is actually shooting your argument in the foot... right?

I am not at all shooting myself in the foot.