If they can't be any different, then the fine tuning argument is refuted.
Why?
You are the one who made the argument that rests on a negative.
No i made the argument that there is only one Universe.
Upvote
0
If they can't be any different, then the fine tuning argument is refuted.
You are the one who made the argument that rests on a negative.
Back up what you claim in this paragraph.
"So there is a machine that makes Universes, okay, why does this machine stopped to produce new Universes and where does these Universes floating? Even if there was a machine like that it would still take an extremely cut edge Fine Tuning to produce Universes and strictly Universes and not etc floating brains, a machine like that needs a fine tuned constant to create Universes."
1. Why would this machine have stopped.
2. That it would take "extremely cut edge Fine Tuning". Lottery machines don't need fine tuning to get a jackpot winner at 1 to 150 million odds.
3. That such a machine would need a fine tuned constant.
4. That a machine like this would even be needed.
What do you mean by the "extremes of fine tuning"?
Let's start with the most basic question.
What is the probability for a universe capable of supporting life springing into existence. Please show your math.
Let's use the lottery as our analogy again.
The likelihood of a specific single ticket winning the Powerball lottery is 1 in 150 million. That is one set of statistics. The other set of statistics is the likelihood that someone will win the Powerball lottery for any given drawing. Obviously, it doesn't take 150 million drawings for someone to win. People win the Powerball lottery all of the time. Those are the two sets of considerations that we are looking at.
The fine tuning argument says that since the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 150 million, then someone winning the lottery would be incredibly improbable so it shouldn't happen. See the problem?
Yes i see the problem..
Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not sure you understand probability. That somebody wins the lottery is not unlikely at all. It is, indeed, necessary.That a specific person wins the lottery is more or less unlikely, it depends on how many tickets were sold.
That a complex functional proteins emerges by random search or random walk is so unlikely that it cannot practically happen in our universe (too many tickets sold, one for each possible protein sequence of a certain length).
1) A lottery is held. One billion tickets are sold. One ticket is extracted as winner. We assume the lottery is fair (therefore, probabilities are computed according to an uniform distribution).
2.1) Probability that the same person (any person) wins all five lotteries (assuming that the same persons buy one ticket per lottery) = 10^-36
We can not see evidence that this universe is the only universe in existence.
I love how you give an invisible multiverse the benefit of the doubt, sight unseen, but not God.
I also give God the benefit of the doubt. I have never proclaimed that God does not exist, nor do any of my arguments rest on God not existing.
I love how you give an invisible multiverse the benefit of the doubt, sight unseen, but not God.
I understand.
With that said, we have to keep in mind, we do know universes do exist,
Sure, but one and only one. Apparently the mainstream only "sees" about 5 percent of that one thing too.because we can observe one right now.
Who's we? I can certainly "see" the God that I believe in. In fact I see more of him than the mainstream professes to actually "observe" of their one, mostly dark universe.We can't say the same for a God.
Ya, but even from my perspective, I still have no evidence that more than one of them exists. That's why I'm a "monotheist" by the way.Doesn't mean a God doesn't exist, it just means the evidence is there that at least one of these things does exist and we know it.
I was really just focused on the "leaning" aspect, but at this point we're just whipping a dead horse.I agree with you that at present, the evidence leans towards one universe, but certainly more could exist, just like a God could exist.
A multiverse and God could both exist, ever think of that?
A multiverse and God could both exist, ever think of that?
I see you're still straddling that razor's edge and holding a lack of belief and disbelief in all things that you cannot observe, except of course as it relates to astronomy.
Sure, why not?
And I have been saying this over and over and over with the math to support it.
The Infinite Eternal God (all space taken up by matter) issues a holographic wave front as a self expression. "Solid space" is then cavitated into relative vacuum bubbles/universes/images of God. You cannot make an image of infinite solid space, it has no edge to define form.
God is infinite therefore the metaverse contains infinite universes.
God is One therefor each universe is the same waveform expression of that One.
It's really not that difficult.
Usus,
You are fairly unique and likable. With that said, I don't believe you have supported much of anything with verifiable objective evidence.
You are leaving out the fact the other side of the lottery is not random. The chances of the one who running the lottery of winning is 100%. A lottery is more like Deal A poker hand (stacked deck) than Deal B poker hand (random draw).It appears that you don't understand the probabilities. For the Powerball lottery, the chances that a specific person will win is 1 in 150 million which is very unlikely, at least in my book.
.