Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

[Bradskii]

...raised our right hand and pledged allegiance to the Atheist Flag.

The popular one is apparently a stylised A encircled by what could be an atomic whirl of two electrons (helium?).

 

[SelfSim]

Can't you actually construct an argument in favor of a multiverse, based solely on the properties of God as defined in scripture?

Premise A: God is the maximum, most powerful, and perfect entity that could possibly exist

Premise B: A God that created infinite universes is infinitely more impressive than a God that created just one

Conclusion: The multiverse exists

The other universes were created by him to test which ones wouldn't work out when he was a twiddling the fine tuning knobs .. He then obscured them from our view so we wouldn't find out .. but he can't fool us .. we now know he must therefore, be a scientist.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

In most of my science classes while getting my doctorate we started off all classes with a solemn oath to destroy the concept of God (raised our right hand and pledged allegiance to the Atheist Flag) and only THEN could we start class.

Ha! Every one knows that atheists raise their LEFT hand when swearing to destroy the concept of God and say the pledge.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've never really seen that the question being asked behind the so-called 'fine-tuning', as being anything more than a purely philosophical one .. which would then make the explanation a purely philosophical explanation .. so, therefore, I'm not at all convinced of its usefulness?

Since when was utility the prime reason for curiosity?

I see where you're coming from, but as I understand it, it's a (meta)physical question that is of interest to physicists looking for a theory of everything; the idea being that they want to know if the physical constants are predicted by a theory of everything or not; i.e. do they have a common dependency, is such a theory co-explanatory of the constants, are they fixed, could they be different, and if so how?

Either a positive or a negative answer would be interesting and potentially lead to further avenues of study. Whether the answer would be useful in any other way, I couldn't say...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well I'm no expert on formal logic, but I think you can get the gist of what this hypothetical argument is going for.

It echoes Anselm's Ontological Argument for God - but slightly more plausible

 

[chilehed]

Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

I don't know about that, but "multiverse" is certainly a contradiction in terms, similar to "four-sided triangle".

 

[Freodin]

I don't know about that, but "multiverse" is certainly a contradiction in terms, similar to "four-sided triangle".

It happens when some terms take on a life of their own. Meanings shift, and then you have to create new terms to get back to the old meaning.

 

[Freodin]

The fine-tuning argument as evidence for a creator, especially one of the proposed "God" kind, always had a curious flaw in my view. A flaw that somehow all its supporters keep to ignore.

If the universe is "fine-tuned"... what is it fine-tuned to?

Every physical concept we observe or postulate, every "law", every "constant", is based on the very "universe" that we observe. From our view, the universe would appear to be fine-tuned... to itself.

But with the idea of an non-physical, omnipotent deity creating "ex nihilo" - from nothing... there just isn't anything to fine-tune to. The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fine-tuning argument as evidence for a creator, especially one of the proposed "God" kind, always had a curious flaw in my view. A flaw that somehow all its supporters keep to ignore.

If the universe is "fine-tuned"... what is it fine-tuned to?

Every physical concept we observe or postulate, every "law", every "constant", is based on the very "universe" that we observe. From our view, the universe would appear to be fine-tuned... to itself.

But with the idea of an non-physical, omnipotent deity creating "ex nihilo" - from nothing... there just isn't anything to fine-tune to. The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.

Yes, Sean Carroll pointed this out in one of his theist vs atheist debates. An omnipotent creator wouldn't need to 'fine-tune' (and if creating just for us, wouldn't need to put us in the outskirts of a galaxy of billions of other stars that's just one of billions in a universe larger than we can comprehend).

 

[Astrid]

Where do you get this from? There aren't any scientific proposals that claim this. I think that you just made it up.

What besides making thing up is a
creationist to do?
You'd leave them with nothing but
repeatung what others make up?

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know about that, but "multiverse" is certainly a contradiction in terms, similar to "four-sided triangle".

Where's the contradiction?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where's the contradiction?

I suspect he's not aware that galaxies were called 'island universes' within living memory

 

[Ophiolite]

Where's the contradiction?

I think what @chilehed is getting at is - the universe is, by definition, everything. So, how can we have multiple, discrete everythings?

From a strict linguistic standpoint he is correct. However, this is not the first time this has happened in relation to the universe. Until the early part of the 20th century it was thought that our galaxy was the entire universe. Imperfectly glimpsed other galaxies were referred to as island universes, though debate raged as to whether they were objects within or external to our galaxy.

Edit: I see I've cross-posted the same thought as @FrumiousBandersnatch

 

[durangodawood]

Ah. I see what you all are saying.

Well now universe just means all things in our continuum.

Lets not let a pesky old-time word definition restrain reality from consisting of other separate continua.

 

[chilehed]

Where's the contradiction?

It's a term that indicates "multiple universes",which by definition is a contradiction in terms.

I suspect he's not aware that galaxies were called 'island universes' within living memory

A contradiction in terms doesn't become otherwise merely because more than one person uses it.

 

[durangodawood]

It's a term that indicates "multiple universes",which by definition is a contradiction in terms.

A contradiction in terms doesn't become otherwise merely because more than one person uses it.

So we have a word problem. This says nothing about the aspect of reality under discussion.

 

[CatsRule2020]

Yes, Sean Carroll pointed this out in one of his theist vs atheist debates. An omnipotent creator wouldn't need to 'fine-tune' (and if creating just for us, wouldn't need to put us in the outskirts of a galaxy of billions of other stars that's just one of billions in a universe larger than we can comprehend).

The odds being so overwhelming that there exists another world possible of sustaining life, that scientific philosophers still cannot get around the Boltzmann Brain problem. The Boltzmann problem, in the nutshell, is that the odds of there existing another life-sustaining world is so overwhelming that it is more probable that we are occasionally popping in and out of the equilibrium and experiencing reality.

 

[Vap841]

The fine-tuning argument as evidence for a creator, especially one of the proposed "God" kind, always had a curious flaw in my view. A flaw that somehow all its supporters keep to ignore.

If the universe is "fine-tuned"... what is it fine-tuned to?

Every physical concept we observe or postulate, every "law", every "constant", is based on the very "universe" that we observe. From our view, the universe would appear to be fine-tuned... to itself.

But with the idea of an non-physical, omnipotent deity creating "ex nihilo" - from nothing... there just isn't anything to fine-tune to. The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.

But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible? And as far as I understood it this is why people come back and reply that maybe there are infinite universes, and the settings of our universe is the winner of a cosmic lottery (so there are trillions of other universes out there that are perhaps just huge clouds of dust that have no organization to them). So that it’s not about fine tuned as compared to other universes, but about being fine tuned to meet strict conditions so that something works. For instance I could say that a truck was built very well if it serves me with minimal issues for 50 years, even if I have never seen any other vehicles in my life to compare it to and I don’t really know how long trucks are supposed to run for. Ok I get it that maybe you could say that I’m ignorant to the fact that other universes are better designed and they last 20 times longer than our universe, but I’m just talking about the level of fine tuning for something to work compared to it not working.

The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.

But doesn’t that actually make the point? If the rules for the formation of something to work are more & more strict then the stricter those rules become the less & less likely that it happening by accident is feasible. So that it wouldn’t be too far fetched to see a piece of paper that got smooshed and creased many times successfully fly like a paper airplane, and to conclude that it was just accidental coincidence that it got folded in all the right ways, but by contrast it would become unreasonable to claim that a real airplane successfully flies because it got accidentally formed in all of the right ways.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible?

That's the claim, but it is false.

I can't think of a single physical constant that if altered by 1 part in 10^11 (a billionth of a percent) would matter a single bit to the development of life.

 

[chilehed]

So we have a word problem. This says nothing about the aspect of reality under discussion.

The reality is that, however many of these postulated mutually-inaccessible regions of temporal there are, by definition every one of them is part of a single universe.

Semantics is important. Sloppy definitions lead inexorably to sloppy questions and sloppy conclusions.