Mr Strawberry
Newbie
Mathematician now are you? How's the tree pruning going. Plenty of work to keep you employed?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. Buckminster Fuller. Look up "vector equilibrium" and "Kepler's conjecture" if you are interested in actual mathematics.
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.
We only actually observe a single ticket.
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.
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.
That is the odds of a single ticket winning. It doesn't tell us how many universes there are.
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.
It tells us how many losing tickets exist.
*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?
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.Until anybody can provide evidence either for the existence of additional universes are the none-existence of them, we should reject both positions.
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".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.
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.
To support the fine tuning argument, they need to show that there much fewer than 1E100 universes. That's the point.
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.
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".
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".
In a way it does tell us the number of losing tickets *possible*, but not the number that were actually "sold".
We don't have any evidence that there are more than one universe however,
Theeeen... why are you making it?
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, 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 dond't know how many universes there are, right?
That's fine of course, but we're still left with the fact that there is more evidence to support *one* universe than many.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 really my key point.Sure. We only have evidence for one.
Actually, we can investigate that question and folks have tried to make an argument for a multiverse: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.
The fine tuning argument requires evidence that this is the only universe, which is evidence they don't have.
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.
True, but they still have *more* evidence to support the concept of a single universe than you have to support a multiverse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?