Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This argument is the reverse of the God argument. You need to show that "multiverses are not possible" is the same as saying you must show that "God is not possible." They are equally unknown "answers" to the unknown fine-tuning.
Wrong, we have ONE example of a universe, making them NOT the same. I also demonstrated a logical and mathematical argument for multiverse based on what we know, and indicated three scientists for those willing and able to study the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Any claims of God require the existence of consciousness and we have ample evidence such a phenomenon actually exists, whereas we do not have such evidence for a multiverse.
Yes, your usual composition fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Wrong. As usual, that is taking your conclusions a step too far. Modeling of neural networks ONLY evidences that such models can produce similar outcomes as the phenomenon of consciousness that somehow manifests IN the brain processes. It does NOT provide the evidence you assert.
Consciousness is also the venue within which the phenomenon of imagination routinely evidences the "creation of something from nothing." What natural laws do you have that similarly evidence such outcomes?
As usual, you make lame (and contradictory) excuses.
This argument is the reverse of the God argument. You need to show that "multiverses are not possible" is the same as saying you must show that "God is not possible." They are equally unknown "answers" to the unknown fine-tuning. Any claims of God require the existence of consciousness and we have ample evidence such a phenomenon actually exists, whereas we do not have such evidence for a multiverse. Wrong. As usual, that is taking your conclusions a step too far. Modeling of neural networks ONLY evidences that such models can produce similar outcomes as the phenomenon of consciousness that somehow manifests IN the brain processes. It does NOT provide the evidence you assert.
Consciousness is also the venue within which the phenomenon of imagination routinely evidences the "creation of something from nothing." What natural laws do you have that similarly evidence such outcomes?
I don't think anyone can rule out the possibility of multiverses, and in fact I've speculated along those lines as well, but proof of multiverses is not the same as proof of consciousness. Proof of multiverses do not exist just like proof of God does not exist.
I've mentioned before that I know a real astrophysicist who helped me better understand the distinction between what we know about our universe, it's beginning, age and my questions about what was there before that beginning.
He explained there is what we can recognize as our known observable universe, and then there is what no one can know or observe. Astrophysicists simply don't bother with what cannot be known or observed. Makes plenty good sense to me.
Unfortunately, there are a few too many people who go on a bit too much about what no one can know or observe, as if they can observe what others can't. As if they know better. As if their speculation is the same thing as truth.
That's where astrophysicists and people like me get off their fun bus...
Except that careful observations [pdf] indicate there has been no such changing parameters, at least out to z=2.4, and at least any such change greater than fractions of a part per million. But even if there was some change in the parameters, so what?
I expect no argument will make any difference in your position on this or your belief. But really, don't you think "beauty" and even "design" are thoroughly subjective matters? One person's "beauty" could be another's ugliness. And talk about "necessity," why do baryons, which go to make up all stars, planets, animals, and humans, comprise only 4% of the mass/energy of the Universe? Isn't that a lot of "wasted stuff" in the Universe? Not a particularly brilliant design?
You are assuming that baryons are the intended forms of mass/energy. Since they are primarily aggregations, it is more likely that they are the "reproduction system" of the actual mass/energy forms as quanta (consciousness?) that comprise the bulk of our expanding Reality.
What you need to provide is actual evidence only one universe is possible.
As the multiverse is your claim, the onus is on you to produce the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
A multi-universe answers the problem that your one and only fine tuned god must suffer from.
No, it doesn't.
Firstly, it does not explain consciousness.
Secondly, it does not answer the fine-tuning argument. If the rules of the universe are set randomly, then they can be changed randomly, too. If the rules are the same everywhere, then you have to answer for the fact that they are fine-tuned (e.g., the forces that allow for atoms to exist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
As for consciousness, a god did it also is not an answer to consciousness. Whereas modelling of the brain using neural networks is evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. That is evidence we have, and your assertion does not.
No. Regardless of the neural correlates of consciousness, physical matter cannot produce conscious experience. Physical matter cannot experience pain or pleasure, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Once again that is like arguing about a house built with rooms in one position, but are in a different position the next day, or a statue that takes a different pose.
There is a natural mechanism for the house not changing form. As you posit the parameters of the universe being set by no cause, then there is no cause for their fixity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Also, why would the six fundamental constants change once they have been set? There is no evidence this is the case, and we know this because we have checked.
Your appeal is to semantics here. Furthermore, the lack of apparent change for a certain amount of time does not preclude the possibility of their changing in the future, if you have no cause that set them in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ask a dung beetle. Well done, you have just argued for evolution being more probable than your non sequitur.
Nah - beauty has both objective and subjective elements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
And the cosmic inflation argument says the parameters were set ONCE, in the first picosecond (10 ^-12), 13.8 billion years ago, as I said.
So in this scenario, the universe first begins existing--having one set of parameters. And, after it has started existed, those parameters changed! It doesn't matter how short of a time it was. The fact that this is the only way to rescue the big bang model from its flaws shows the flaws in your argument and nullifies your attempted comparison with the fixity of the layout of a house or the pose of a statue. If we liken the universe to a house, under the big bang scenario (which I don't subscribe to), that house has already, once having been built, rearranged the rooms within itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heron31
Except that careful observations [pdf] indicate there has been no such changing parameters, at least out to z=2.4, and at least any such change greater than fractions of a part per million. But even if there was some change in the parameters, so what?
It matters because the parameters of the universe are finely tuned for life.
As the multiverse is your claim, the onus is on you to produce the evidence.
Again? OK. How many universes do we have? ONE. That is the evidence that universes can be created. And if one can be, you need to provide the evidence why only one can be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. If you increase the probability space, as a multiverse does, you increase the chances at least one universe will be a) sustainable long enough to b) produce life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Firstly, it does not explain consciousness.
Na und? Neither does your god did it assertion. The multiverse theory also does not telly you how to reduce your tax bill, how to bake Apfelstrudel, how to balance carburetors, who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop, or where the body of Jimmy Hoffa is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Secondly, it does not answer the fine-tuning argument.
Yes it does. Your god just knowing (sans brain) the precise parameters does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
If the rules of the universe are set randomly, then they can be changed randomly, too.
So you keep asserting without any evidence. I have 13 billion years of evidence this does not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
If the rules are the same everywhere, then you have to answer for the fact that they are fine-tuned (e.g., the forces that allow for atoms to exist).
So do you for your god. A multiverse scenario is my answer, it is rational, and has the science behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
No. Regardless of the neural correlates of consciousness, physical matter cannot produce conscious experience.
I have decades of science that says it can. It certainly produces the illusion of colors. Whereas you have an assertion that needs to ignore that evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Physical matter cannot experience pain or pleasure, etc.
True. But our brain process can, just as it can see colors that do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
There is a natural mechanism for the house not changing form. As you posit the parameters of the universe being set by no cause, then there is no cause for their fixity.
I gave you three possible causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Your appeal is to semantics here. Furthermore, the lack of apparent change for a certain amount of time does not preclude the possibility of their changing in the future, if you have no cause that set them in the first place.
What you think may (or may not) be possible is irrelevant to what we actually know. Do try and focus on what we do know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Nah - beauty has both objective and subjective elements.
Another assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
So in this scenario, the universe first begins existing--having one set of parameters. And, after it has started existed, those parameters changed! It doesn't matter how short of a time it was. The fact that this is the only way to rescue the big bang model from its flaws shows the flaws in your argument and nullifies your attempted comparison with the fixity of the layout of a house or the pose of a statue. If we liken the universe to a house, under the big bang scenario (which I don't subscribe to), that house has already, once having been built, rearranged the rooms within itself.
Well done for spotting the flaws in YOUR big bang theory. If only you could do the same for YOUR god theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
It matters because the parameters of the universe are finely tuned for life.
Go live on the moon for 3 months, then come back and argue the parameters of the universe are finely tuned for life. Or sit on the surface of the sun. Or go anywhere else in the universe, where the probability of you (or any life form) surviving is 1:99.999999999999999999999999999% against.
Wrong, we have ONE example of a universe, making them NOT the same. I also demonstrated a logical and mathematical argument for multiverse based on what we know, and indicated three scientists for those willing and able to study the science.
Yes, your usual composition fallacy.
As usual, you make lame (and contradictory) excuses.
We have probably 8 BILLION examples of consciousness yet you pretend it cannot be an attribute of our universe using YOUR composition fallacy nonsense. Your stupid reasoning that because the only known ways consciousness has been observed has been in organisms with brains that somehow limits it. That is like reasoning that the EM spectrum exists but the only way we KNOW we can observe it being produced is through electric generators, which is absurd.
We have probably 8 BILLION examples of consciousness yet you pretend it cannot be an attribute of our universe using YOUR composition fallacy nonsense. Your stupid reasoning that because the only known ways consciousness has been observed has been in organisms with brains that somehow limits it. That is like reasoning that the EM spectrum exists but the only way we KNOW we can observe it being produced is through electric generators, which is absurd.
Pretend? My composition fallacy (after reposting YOUR composition fallacy ). My stupid (Bayesian and scientific) reasoning?
Once again, instead of your usual dishonest ad hominems, provide actual, credible evidence (with explanatory power) for your alternate. Because your arrogant misrepresentations are now getting boring.
Pretend? My composition fallacy (after reposting YOUR composition fallacy ). My stupid (Bayesian and scientific) reasoning?
Once again, instead of your usual dishonest ad hominems, provide actual, credible evidence (with explanatory power) for your alternate. Because your arrogant misrepresentations are now getting boring.
You are not remotely trying to think beyond your preconceived atheism. You provide ONE example of the existence of a universe and pretend that supports the possible existence of an infinite number. I present 8 BILLION examples of the existence of consciousness and posit an infinite consciousness as their source and you do not see that the arguments are equivalent. You are hopelessly bogged down in your atheism and unable to think your way out.
Pretend? My composition fallacy (after reposting YOUR composition fallacy ). My stupid (Bayesian and scientific) reasoning?
Once again, instead of your usual dishonest ad hominems, provide actual, credible evidence (with explanatory power) for your alternate. Because your arrogant misrepresentations are now getting boring.
You sound like those that were getting on Galileo's case. Not cool.
A hypothesis that assesses extant information, data, and knowledge & reasonable assumptions based upon observations, to endeavor to determine the probability of yet uncertain ideas and concepts, is how things are figured out.
And that is exactly what Mystic does. Yet, you bust on him for doing that? Why? Is it the subject of the existence of God that has you so tweaked that you are compelled to get on the case of strangers for contemplating and embracing such an idea?
Currently...the vast majority of the people on Earth perceive a God Entity...and that would be MOST! And growing. So much so, it can be reasonably determined to be a Standard of Human Understanding.
Like people that can perceive things through sight is standard and normal, with the blind being the unfortunately deficient exception...such is those that can perceive God compared to those that lack that perceptive ability.
And like the blind, they have my utmost sympathy...and I pray for them.
Again? OK. How many universes do we have? ONE. That is the evidence that universes can be created. And if one can be, you need to provide the evidence why only one can be?
You really think the burden of proof is on me? Well, it’s not. If you claim there is more than one universe, the onus is one you to prove it. But I see why you want to shift the burden of proof here, because there is no evidence. So you would rather have me trying to disprove it. Even so, and even though you have the burden of proof, I have already given a few pretty good reasons against it.
Quote:
Yes it does. If you increase the probability space, as a multiverse does, you increase the chances at least one universe will be a) sustainable long enough to b) produce life.
Na und? Neither does your god did it assertion. The multiverse theory also does not telly you how to reduce your tax bill, how to bake Apfelstrudel, how to balance carburetors, who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop, or where the body of Jimmy Hoffa is.
As to consciousness, what it shows is that the material universe is not all that exists. We know God is a Spirit. We know His power by His ability to create matter and spirits. The multiverse hypothesis is put forward to account for the existence of life and the right conditions that exist for it. But it still falls short in explaining consciousness. It doesn’t even attempt to do so. Materialists deny that there is even a hard problem of consciousness. But, frankly, the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard to comprehend with God.
Quote:
So you keep asserting without any evidence. I have 13 billion years of evidence this does not happen.
Well, why would I provide evidence for something happening in a worldview that I don’t believe? I don’t believe in the big bang. I don’t believe in “random” changes to the operating parameters of the universe. What I’m saying is these are things that your worldview has to account for. If you subscribe to the big bang (with or without a multiverse), then you must account for a random change in the universe’s operating rules after it sprang into existence. Because that model requires it. There’s really no evidence for it, other than that the big bang is falsified without it. And if that random change could happen then, then it could happen any other time, too. There’s literally nothing in your atheistic worldview to prevent that from happening.
On a side note, there does appear to be some evidence for a variable speed of light. This is the view I’m inclined to believe. But it’s very different from the absurdity of rules being set in an atheistic universe, as God would be overseeing any changes to the universe, if indeed the speed of light has slowed down since the creation.
And you don’t have 13 billion years of evidence, or evidence of 13 billion years.
Quote:
True. But our brain process can, just as it can see colors that do not exist.
“True”!? So you agree that physical matter cannot experience pain, pleasure, sadness, etc? But what is a brain made up of in your worldview? Just physical matter, right? How do you avoid philosophical zombies? (I.e., beings that can react to the external environment but have no inner experience.) That’s all that should exist, if only physical matter existed. Just complex robots. Adding physical complexity does not create a new phenomenon, which is consciousness.
Quote:
I gave you three possible causes.
Your house and statue comparisons are bogus. What is the mechanism by which the universe's distinct fundamental forces were set? If you don't have one--which you really don't apart from God--if you have only random chance, then you have no cause for their fixity either.
Frankly, I would go even further than I've gone on this point: it is impossible for the universe to even have operating parameters apart from God. This issue is just like consciousness. The laws of nature and a reality that transcend the physical universe, just like consciousness.
Quote:
Well done for spotting the flaws in YOUR big bang theory.
As I explained, I don't have a "big bang theory" because I repudiate that nonsense utterly. But if you are an atheist who believes in it, then I brought this issue up to show why you are wrong about the fixity of the laws of nature. The horizon problem requires either a variable speed of light, or cosmic inflation (a variable rate of expansion of the universe) in order to be solved. Thus, your claim that the universe's operating parameters have not changed since what you believe to be its beginning billions of ago, is demonstrably untenable even in a secular worldview.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I gave you three possible causes.
Another assertion.
