A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Mr Strawberry]

No. Buckminster Fuller. Look up "vector equilibrium" and "Kepler's conjecture" if you are interested in actual mathematics.

Mathematician now are you? How's the tree pruning going. Plenty of work to keep you employed?

 

[Loudmouth]

If we use your analogy, we only *one* lottery ticket is ever purchased by anyone, and it just so happens to be the "winning' one.

False. All you have evidence for is a winner, not how many tickets were bought.

 

[Michael]

False. All you have evidence for is a winner, not how many tickets were bought.

We only actually observe a single ticket.

 

[Loudmouth]

We only actually observe a single ticket.

Yes, the winning ticket. You don't have evidence for how many losing tickets there are.

 

[Michael]

Yes, the winning ticket. You don't have evidence for how many losing tickets there are.

Yes, I do. Penrose calculated the total number of tickets, and therefore he can tell me how may losing tickets are possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I do. Penrose calculated the total number of tickets, and therefore he can tell me how may losing tickets are possible.

Penrose only calculated the odds of a ticket winning or losing. He didn't calculate how many tickets were bought.

 

[Michael]

Penrose only calculated the odds of a ticket winning or losing. He didn't calculate how many tickets were bought.

Penrose calculated the total number of tickets, by calculating the odds of inflation leading to a "flat" universe. The odds of us ending up in a flat universe *with* inflation are 10 to the 100th power *less* likely with inflation than without it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Penrose calculated the total number of tickets, by calculating the odds of inflation leading to a "flat" universe.

That is the odds of a single ticket winning. It doesn't tell us how many universes there are.

The odds of us ending up in a flat universe *with* inflation are 10 to the 100th power *less* likely with inflation than without it.

And if there are 10 to the 150th instances where a universe was started, then we would expect 10 to the 50th flat universes.

 

[Michael]

That is the odds of a single ticket winning. It doesn't tell us how many universes there are.

It tells us how many losing tickets exist.

And if there are 10 to the 150th instances where a universe was started, then we would expect 10 to the 50th flat universes.

*If*? To support that claim, you'd need to find evidence that more than one 'universe' exists. Unfortunately you've got no such evidence.

 

[RichardParker]

*If*? To support that claim, you'd need to find evidence that more than one 'universe' exists. Unfortunately you've got no such evidence.

Can you show that there is only one?
No?
Well, then we can't make any statement either way, right?
Until anybody can provide evidence either for the existence of additional universes are the none-existence of them, we should reject both positions.
Which means, we can't really calculate any probability here, due to the lack of data about the actual number of "tickets", in the example.

 

[Loudmouth]

It tells us how many losing tickets exist.

No, it doesn't. If the odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 150 million, it does not tell us that there are 150 million -1 losing tickets.

*If*? To support that claim, you'd need to find evidence that more than one 'universe' exists. Unfortunately you've got no such evidence.

To support the fine tuning argument, they need to show that there much fewer than 1E100 universes. That's the point.

 

[Michael]

Can you show that there is only one?
No?
Well, then we can't make any statement either way, right?

Right. That's why it's a "weak" argument IMO.

Until anybody can provide evidence either for the existence of additional universes are the none-existence of them, we should reject both positions.

Acceptance is based upon the "definition' of a universe, whereas rejection of the concept is based on the premise that there are multiple universes out there. There's only 'evidence' for one at the moment, and by definition there is but one of them.

Which means, we can't really calculate any probability here, due to the lack of data about the actual number of "tickets", in the example.

I'd be inclined to agree that the number of tickets "sold' is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it's a weak argument. There is however only evidence of *one* universe at the moment, and no evidence to support a "multiverse".

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't. If the odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 150 million, it does not tell us that there are 150 million -1 losing tickets.

In a way it does tell us the number of losing tickets *possible*, but not the number that were actually "sold".

To support the fine tuning argument, they need to show that there much fewer than 1E100 universes. That's the point.

We don't have any evidence that there are more than one universe however, so the *current* evidence supports the existence of only one of them. I'm not claiming this is a particularly "strong' argument, but there's *more* evidence to support a universe, and *less* evidence to support a multiverse. I think even you would have to concede that point.

 

[RichardParker]

Right. That's why it's a "weak" argument IMO.

Theeeen... why are you making it?
I mean, your argument depends on us only having one universe, even though you can't say anything about how many there actually are.
Or did I miss something?
I mean, I got the impression that you were trying to asses the odds of having this universe, and you can't possibly say anything about it, when you don't know how many universes there are, right?

Acceptance is based upon the "definition' of a universe, whereas rejection of the concept is based on the premise that there are multiple universes out there.

No, actually not.
I can reject it, simply based on the fact that we don't know how many universes there are. The probability-calculation depends on the value of how many universes there are. And since we don't have a number for that, we can't calculate it at all... therefore we should rejct all arguments that depend in any way on any value for the number of universes.

I'd be inclined to agree that the number of tickets "sold' is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it's a weak argument. There is however only evidence of *one* universe at the moment, and no evidence to support a "multiverse".

Sure. We only have evidence for one.
But not because we have investigated the other options and found that there aren't any (as far as we can tell), but simply that we can't investigate that question.
So, I wouldn't say it's a weak argument. It's an argument that can't support one of its major premisses. Therefore it's an invalide argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right. That's why it's a "weak" argument IMO.

Acceptance is based upon the "definition' of a universe, whereas rejection of the concept is based on the premise that there are multiple universes out there. There's only 'evidence' for one at the moment, and by definition there is but one of them.

I'd be inclined to agree that the number of tickets "sold' is unknown and unknowable, and therefore it's a weak argument. There is however only evidence of *one* universe at the moment, and no evidence to support a "multiverse".

The fine tuning argument requires evidence that this is the only universe, which is evidence they don't have.

 

[Loudmouth]

In a way it does tell us the number of losing tickets *possible*, but not the number that were actually "sold".

Which is what I am getting at.

We don't have any evidence that there are more than one universe however,

And we don't have evidence that there is only one universe, which is what the fine tuning argument requires.

 

[Michael]

Theeeen... why are you making it?

Actually I'm not. I've stated several times that I think it's a very weak argument in fact.

I mean, your argument depends on us only having one universe, even though you can't say anything about how many there actually are.
Or did I miss something?

The only thing that you're missing is evidence for more than one of them. There is evidence of one, but not more than one. In short there is *more* evidence to support the claim than there is to refute it. It's still a weak argument IMO.

I mean, I got the impression that you were trying to asses the odds of having this universe, and you can't possibly say anything about it, when you dond't know how many universes there are, right?

Yes and no. The argument against inflation doesn't depend on the number of universes in existence. The evidence of "fine tuning' however probably does depend on there being but one.

No, actually not.
I can reject it, simply based on the fact that we don't know how many universes there are. The probability-calculation depends on the value of how many universes there are. And since we don't have a number for that, we can't calculate it at all... therefore we should rejct all arguments that depend in any way on any value for the number of universes.

That's fine of course, but we're still left with the fact that there is more evidence to support *one* universe than many.

Sure. We only have evidence for one.

That's really my key point.

But not because we have investigated the other options and found that there aren't any (as far as we can tell), but simply that we can't investigate that question.
So, I wouldn't say it's a weak argument. It's an argument that can't support one of its major premisses. Therefore it's an invalide argument.

Actually, we can investigate that question and folks have tried to make an argument for a multiverse:

Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Daily Mail Online

I'm simply noting that there is *more* evidence to support the existence of *one* universe, and *less* evidence to support the concept of multiverse.

I do however hear your point about making a *claim* to support either position, but this points us back to the *weight of evidence* to support each premise. IMO there is simply *more* evidence to support the premise of one universe, and *less* evidence to support a multiverse theory. It's really a "weight of evidence" argument as I see it.

 

[Michael]

The fine tuning argument requires evidence that this is the only universe, which is evidence they don't have.

True, but they still have *more* evidence to support the concept of a single universe than you have to support a multiverse.

 

[Michael]

Which is what I am getting at.



And we don't have evidence that there is only one universe, which is what the fine tuning argument requires.

IMO there's still a subtle issue involving the overall weight of evidence in favor of each premise. They have more evidence to support their claim than you have to refute it.

 

[Loudmouth]

True, but they still have *more* evidence to support the concept of a single universe than you have to support a multiverse.

No more so than we had evidence for a universe with a single planet 1,000 years ago.