Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

[QED]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

I've illustrated this scenario in the following picture:



Here our Universe, with it's critical values, is all that exists -- besides its sentient, designer-creator.

However, other forms of selection are possible. The simple act of observation can create its own selection Effect. In the illustration that follows I have drawn our Universe surrounded by numerous other universes. Within this ensemble the vast majority could be expected to have parameters that would not support life (at least in a form that would be recognizable to us). But a tiny number might. We could, therefore, have selected our own Universe as one from many, simply as a consequence of it having a favorable set of parameters for our existence.



If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

[4gold]

If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent.

Can I get some clarification on this? It is impossible for us to gather physical evidence of multiple universes, so it's not falsifiable nor testable. The extent of empirical evidence for multiverse theory is mathematical theory.

Is this what you mean by empirical evidence?

How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

I would apply Occam's Razor. Given two reasonable possibilities for an underdetermined question, the preference is for the simpler answer. By analyzing the assumptions necessary in order to accept both theories (single universe versus multiverse), multiverse theory is clearly much more complex.

[otseng]

Thanks for bringing this topic up. And I also like your illustrations.

If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

The only empirical evidence that we have are the constants in our own universe. And we have no empirical data of the constants in other universes.

Further, the multiverse proposal makes several assumptions:
- other universes exist
- a bunch of those other universes exist
- they all have differing constants

None of these assumptions can be tested.

This shows that they are not equivalent.

[QED]

Can I get some clarification on this? It is impossible for us to gather physical evidence of multiple universes, so it's not falsifiable nor testable. The extent of empirical evidence for multiverse theory is mathematical theory.

Is this what you mean by empirical evidence?

No. The evidence is exactly the same as for a deliberate act of intelligent design: namely the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants. These parameters have no known reason to be set with the values they possess. The various "many worlds" hypotheses (of which the multiverse is but one) are simply put forward as a possible explanation for how the particular values that lead to a life-supporting universe have come to be selected.

How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

I would apply Occam's Razor. Given two reasonable possibilities for an underdetermined question, the preference is for the simpler answer. By analyzing the assumptions necessary in order to accept both theories (single universe versus multiverse), multiverse theory is clearly much more complex.

I don't see this as a good application of Occam's Razor. The multiplicity of universes should count as one additional entity -- not be incremented by each universe implied by the data -- which is what I think you've done by calling it much more complex. Furthermore, we already understand what "a universe" is by way of our own and it is theoretically not impossible that we could create universes of our own some day. Lastly, I do not think the weighing of one metaphysical entity (a multiverse) against another (a creator-designer) is in keeping with the spirit of Occam's Razor.

[QED]

The only empirical evidence that we have are the constants in our own universe. And we have no empirical data of the constants in other universes.

Agreed. All we know is that the apparent fine-tuning of our constants begs an explanation.

Further, the multiverse proposal makes several assumptions:
- other universes exist

I ought to correct this slightly. The proposal really only amounts to the postulate that there are other domains in which different physical constants pertain. As far as we can see in our own universe, these constants apply everywhere. But we can only see a finite portion of space-time due to the finite speed of light. There may be causally connected regions having other physical constants beyond our present horizon. But all these schemes are functionally equivalent. They all supply an external context from which our universe is extracted.

- a bunch of those other universes exist
- they all have differing constants

None of these assumptions can be tested.

That's hard to say for sure. I've yet to see acknowledgment one way or the other for Lee Smolin's testable theory of Cosmological Natural Selection. Lee is currently heading the criticism over string theory on account of its lack of testability. I know he's confident that he can't be called a hypocrite over his own cosmological theories.

This shows that they are not equivalent.

They being? I asked how we were to distinguish between deliberate selection and self-selection as the evidence presented by the apparent fine-tuning doesn't seem to favour one over the other.

[otseng]

They being? I asked how we were to distinguish between deliberate selection and self-selection as the evidence presented by the apparent fine-tuning doesn't seem to favour one over the other.

They being "one of many" and "specially designed".

The "specially designed" doesn't really have any assumptions. Except for perhaps the assumption that something outside our (observable) universe could exist. But, both explanations would have this assumption.

The difference is that the "one of many" requires many more additional assumptions. This would also speak for it being a more "complex" explanation.

- a bunch of those other universes exist
- they all have differing constants

None of these assumptions can be tested.

That's hard to say for sure.

How can they be tested?

And what if all the other universes had the same constant values? Wouldn't that further demand an explanation?

Lastly, I do not think the weighing of one metaphysical entity (a multiverse) against another (a creator-designer) is in keeping with the spirit of Occam's Razor.

I don't see a problem with its application here. Especially since they are the only two explanations offered.

[Furrowed Brow]

Excellent illustrations QED.

[1] Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that [2] the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

First off I just want to point out that 2 cannot be logically inferred from 1. This is not a valid inferences. Hence your use of the phrase “suggest to some” rather than the more formal “implies” I think. Personally I do not find critical parameters suggestive of any intelligence at play. As living beings we cannot help but observes a universe that, to borrow Denton’s phrase is fit for life.

Rejection of the multiverses I find interesting. If we place such a concept offside there is then only one universe - this universe- to be considered. And if there can be only one universe, then there is no selection of parameters going on. Things could not have been different. Thus no designer. Moreover, those parameters cannot be special because that implies non special parameters.

It is an inconsistence position to on the hand cite fine tuning and on the other reject alternative ways of tuning the universe. That is a deeply incoherent standpoint. So any argument that relies on fine tuning is committed to invoking alternative universes.

[4gold]

No. The evidence is exactly the same as for a deliberate act of intelligent design: namely the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants. These parameters have no known reason to be set with the values they possess. The various "many worlds" hypotheses (of which the multiverse is but one) are simply put forward as a possible explanation for how the particular values that lead to a life-supporting universe have come to be selected.

Thanks. If I am reading you correctly, you are stating that there is no empirical evidence for the "many worlds" hypothesis, just as there is no empirical evidence for Intelligent Design. If this is what you are stating, I agree.

I don't see this as a good application of Occam's Razor. The multiplicity of universes should count as one additional entity -- not be incremented by each universe implied by the data -- which is what I think you've done by calling it much more complex. Furthermore, we already understand what "a universe" is by way of our own and it is theoretically not impossible that we could create universes of our own some day. Lastly, I do not think the weighing of one metaphysical entity (a multiverse) against another (a creator-designer) is in keeping with the spirit of Occam's Razor.

I guess I should clarify my own remarks. What I meant is that while both the "many worlds" hypothesis and the "single, finite universe" hypothesis are equally valid answers to the same question, the assumptions behind both are not the same. One requires the observer to accept more assumptions and more complex assumptions than the other.

I would agree with otseng on the assumptions that must be maintained in order to accept the "many worlds" hypothesis. But consider why the "many worlds" hypothesis is even necessary...only to justify a philosophical viewpoint that our universe could have been created by chance. If our own universe could be explained as the only universe via random chance and probabilities (and it can, but those chances are too improbable to be rational), no one would even be hypothesizing a "many worlds" theory.

So I think this makes the question ripe for application of Occam. We have all the requirements necessary for Occam: (1) two or more reasonable answers to the same question and (2) an underdetermined answer to the question.

[4gold]

It is an inconsistence position to on the hand cite fine tuning and on the other reject alternative ways of tuning the universe. That is a deeply incoherent standpoint. So any argument that relies on fine tuning is committed to invoking alternative universes.

It would be an inconsistent position to cite fine tuning parameters without having other possibilities, but it is not inconsistent to reject the alternatives. There can only be one correct answer, so if fine tuning is the answer, then one must coherently reject the alternative theories.

But I think what you meant was that it is inconsistent to state fine tuning and not demonstrate how the universe could have used other parameters.

[Furrowed Brow]

It would be an inconsistent position to cite fine tuning parameters without having other possibilities, but it is not inconsistent to reject the alternatives.

Hmm. Ok so we can admit other possibilities. But by what criteria are the alternatives rejected?. (I think you mean reject alternative universes that might contain alternative forms of life.)

There can only be one correct answer,

Why? We can accept other possibilities? So how do we know there can only be one answer to life? Unless of course you are saying that the observed universe can be the only universe accepted as containing life, whilst all those non observed possibilities that might also be a home to life can be rejected. Yet still keep a straight face when accepting alternative possibility universes as unable to harbour life.

So when you say...

...so if fine tuning is the answer, then one must coherently reject the alternative theories.

...that fails to recognise the circularity of the argument. You have to reject the possibility of alternative life bearing universes for fine tuning to be the answer. And of course if they are not rejected that introduces huge unknowns. Which ruins the fine tuning argument. But you seem to be falling back on the fine tuning premise based on only this universe for evidence to reject the alternatives. Yet still keep the possibility of alternative dead universes. Which have to be dead because the only acceptable answer for life is this universe. Sorry, that is a completely one eyed analysis that simply fails critical examination.

But I think what you meant was that it is inconsistent to state fine tuning and not demonstrate how the universe could have used other parameters.

Yes but you have to avoid the kind of circularity noted above. And you also need to show how any other set of alternative parameters cannot harbour life - of any kind. Including life Jim built not as we know it.

If one starts the analysis looking for the critical parameters that only lead to carbon based life then one already assumes one conclusions before the analysis begin. However the end result is then little more than an empty tautology, viz., the critical parameters for carbon based life are critical for carbon based life. A tautology that then guides methodology. For only those alternative possibilities that are a foil for that tautological conclusion are to be considered acceptable ….and here is the kicker…because carbon based life is all we can observe in a universe whose parameters are critical for carbon based life.