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?

[Furrowed Brow]

We could always start a separate topic to debate whether or not the apparent fine-tuning demands an explanation.

I think a separate thread would be best for this.

OK Ok Enuff already. I take the point. Here it is

[QED]

But the universe, or properties of the universe as a whole, are unique in having no such background that we can access. So these basic statements can only be made in conjunction with assumptions about that background -- including the assumption that there might not be a background. .

Likewise, the "one of many" makes an assumption that a creator does not exist.

How so? The hypothesis that our universe "is one of many" is derived from a wide range of theoretical physical models and supplies a mechanism whereby we get to select our own apparent fine-tuning from a landscape of assorted possibilities. We haven't explained how that landscape got there, only how an apparently complex self-selection could take place within it -- without requiring the "malice of forethought" of some intelligent entity to make those difficult selections for us.

However, the "specially designed" explanation does not necessarily "assume" that other backgrounds do not exist, but simply states that there is no evidence for it.

Yet the "specially designed" hypothesis results directly from the appearance of deliberate fine-tuning (After all, we're not debating here whether Moses passed some message about the creation of the universe faithfully or not). For such fine-tuning to be apparent demands the active exclusion of all alternative possibilities. This is because for it to be other than a subjective assessment, the observation needs to be set against the backdrop of an otherwise empty cosmos.

As I've tried to explain on many ocasions now, in order to make these things objective requires that we get that all-important wider context that shows us where our universe sits in relation to some greater background. If we retort that there is no evidence of this unknown background, therefore we should assume it doesn't exist, we are removing our basis for our objective surprise. What you find apparent can only therefore be subjective.

Whereas there are independent arguments/evidence for a creator in addition to the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants. If there were no other independent arguments for a designer, then it would probably have equal footing with the "one of many" explanation. But, since there exists multiple other evidences for a creator, then it has more support than the "one of many".

I hope you don't want to bring Moses into this after all I have no idea what other "evidence" there is for a creator.

What I would like to point out is that we can see that our universe is undergoing some kind of evolution. There's a process taking place, and there's nothing to say that this is the only instance of that process. I know you would like to equate the multiverse with all the other speculations about unseen agencies that perform some mystical task or other -- but we've never seen a pixie or a tooth-fairy... but we have seen a universe. If we see some process, say a small cloud producing a rain-shower, then we are surely justified in the hypothesis that many clouds might solve the mystery of why the lake is full of water?

[otseng]

But the universe, or properties of the universe as a whole, are unique in having no such background that we can access. So these basic statements can only be made in conjunction with assumptions about that background -- including the assumption that there might not be a background. .

Likewise, the "one of many" makes an assumption that a creator does not exist.

How so?

My point is that the two explanations are mutually exclusive. That is, if one accepts a proposition, the other would reject it. The "specially designed" would not consider alternative backgrounds to exist. And likewise the "one of many" would not consider a creator to exist. So, to say that the "specially designed" does not assume other backgrounds to exist is just par for the course.

The hypothesis that our universe "is one of many" is derived from a wide range of theoretical physical models and supplies a mechanism whereby we get to select our own apparent fine-tuning from a landscape of assorted possibilities.

I think more detail will be needed to demonstrate the plausibility of the existence of other universes. To me, it is in the realm of the hypothetical rather than the theoretical. Is there a way to demonstrate to a layman like me that it is beyond simply the hypothetical?

For such fine-tuning to be apparent demands the active exclusion of all alternative possibilities.

I see the alternative possibilities as the variation of constant values within this universe. Using the laws of physics, we can theorize what would happen if the values were different for our own universe.

Another thing I thought of, how do we know the laws of physics and mathematics would be the same in other universes? Perhaps 1+1=3 in another universe. And if that is so, how can we make any meaningful judgements about those universes?

As I've tried to explain on many ocasions now, in order to make these things objective requires that we get that all-important wider context that shows us where our universe sits in relation to some greater background.

And I believe the background would be the theoretical alternatives within this universe rather than other universes.

I have no idea what other "evidence" there is for a creator.

Here are some:
1. Evidence shows that we are at the center of the universe
2. We are alone in the universe
3. Something must've caused the universe
4. The optimal fitness of the components for life

Besides the need to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, are there independent arguments/evidence for the existence of other universes?

If we see some process, say a small cloud producing a rain-shower, then we are surely justified in the hypothesis that many clouds might solve the mystery of why the lake is full of water?

But, if is an unique item, then we aren't able to compare it with something else.

[olivergringold]

1. Evidence shows that we are at the center of the universe
2. We are alone in the universe
3. Something must've caused the universe
4. The optimal fitness of the components for life

1) I clicked the link and didn't find any evidence that appeared in the least bit related to our position in the Universe. If we appear to be at the center it is because our tools for measurement of distant galaxies in different directions is lesser than the actual span of the Universe. 14 Billion years of uninhibited expansion will do that to time/space.
2) Significantly improbable. Based on vibrations in distant starts we know that within our general vicinity there are several stars with large planets in their orbit. While the vibrations caused by planets of our size are too small to detect, it's not too great a logical leap to imagine that existence of other planets in general would indicate the existence of other planets similar to our own. Given the size and scope of the universe, it has even been posited that there is an exact replica of you a mere 10^30 kilometers away, based solely on the probability of your being in relation to the size of the universe.
3) The positive and negative energies in the universe average to zero. Only a net gain or net loss of energy requires cause. Secondly the calculations for the big bang are based on the inverse of the calculations of black holes...such as matter is strained into null, so too is null extrapolated into the universe. If you were right then we wouldn't have found the cosmic microwave background.
4) They are only optimal in this universe. That we consist of them is simply because life is more likely to be made of them. In a hypothetical multiverse that would not be the case. Your physical structure would be so unstable under such conditions that you would probably experience what Douglas Adams whimsically referred to as Total Existence Failure. This does not mean that a being of your composition is inconceivable, merely impractical for your surroundings. In saying that we are special you slant an unending number of other potential lifeforms who, thanks to the arbitrary composition of our universe, will never get to see the light of day.

[acamp1]

1. Evidence shows that we are at the center of the universe

Huh????

Did I really just read that? Where the heck is the evidence for that??

[acamp1]

2. We are alone in the universe

Or that?

Did we just go back in time several hundred years?

Sorry, but these statements are so amazingly foreign to my way of thinking, I'm reduced to puerile comments verging on insults.

Tries to be civil... tries to be civil...

[QED]

But the universe, or properties of the universe as a whole, are unique in having no such background that we can access. So these basic statements can only be made in conjunction with assumptions about that background -- including the assumption that there might not be a background. .

Likewise, the "one of many" makes an assumption that a creator does not exist.

How so?

My point is that the two explanations are mutually exclusive. That is, if one accepts a proposition, the other would reject it. The "specially designed" would not consider alternative backgrounds to exist. And likewise the "one of many" would not consider a creator to exist. So, to say that the "specially designed" does not assume other backgrounds to exist is just par for the course.

You state that the "two explanations are mutually exclusive" but you don't support that statement. What is it that prevents there being a creator of the "mulitverse" for example? Far from being par for the course, the inference of "special design" necessitates the positive ruling-out of alternative backgrounds. As soon as their potential existence is admitted as a possibility, their uncertainty commutes directly to the inference of deliberate design. Your only hope lies in showing how more than one universe cannot be.

I've made this point several times in this debate and in Nature's Destiny. I suspect that you're flipping from this argument (that mandates proof of the non-existence of alternative universes to reliably infer design ) to other proofs for design. Before we go on, we need to get some agreement about the central issue of this debate which is to show inherent ambiguity between a multiverse and a specially designed universe that will be presented to any sentient being in a universe like ours.

I think you should agree that it is ambiguous and that we therefore need additional information to resolve the ambiguity. Only then can we sensibly explore what that additional information might provide in the way of a resolution.

[otseng]

1) I clicked the link and didn't find any evidence that appeared in the least bit related to our position in the Universe....

My intention is not to go through those threads again here. But, if you have specific counterarguments, then please present those in the threads I posted.

1. Evidence shows that we are at the center of the universe

Huh????

Did I really just read that? Where the heck is the evidence for that??

Yep, you read correctly. I'm not going to go into the arguments for that in this thread, but please read through Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

2. We are alone in the universe

Or that?

Did we just go back in time several hundred years?

Sorry, but these statements are so amazingly foreign to my way of thinking, I'm reduced to puerile comments verging on insults.

Tries to be civil... tries to be civil...

Good, I'm glad you resisted the temptation to put down puerile comments.

One thing about this forum is that the most ridiculous claims can be made, provided logical arguments and evidence are presented to back up the claim. I would admit that the ideas I've brought up are anachronistic, and even medievalish. But, I believe I've presented sound reasoning and verifiable evidence for all of the claims I've provided above. I'd encourage you to read through those threads and then decide based on the evidence.

[otseng]

You state that the "two explanations are mutually exclusive" but you don't support that statement. What is it that prevents there being a creator of the "mulitverse" for example?

There certainly could be a creator of the multiverses, but then why the need to add another layer (multiverses) and not go with the creator explanation directly?

Your only hope lies in showing how more than one universe cannot be.

My tactic is not demonstrating that other universes do not exist. But, my argument is that the "creator" explanation fulfills Occam's Razor better than the "many" explanation.

As I've pointed out above, if a designer also created the multiverses, then it adds an unnecessary layer by having to propose multiverses.

But, even more relevant is that more assumptions are required in the "many" explanation. In both explanations, there is the assumption that something exists outside our universe. In the many, there are also further assumptions:
- other universes can exist
- a bunch of those other universes exist
- each of them have the same laws of physics and mathematics as ours
- they all have differing constants

Also, there are several independent arguments/evidence for a creator that corroborate with the design explanation.

[olivergringold]

Osteng, the only evidences you have provided are ones which satisfy your own mind. I repeat: Reading those threads provided no sound evidence to support either one of your claims. You cannot claim them here unless your arguments for them could be verified in the linked threads. That's like me linking to a thread stating that the holocaust never happened (no matter how thoroughly refuted said position is in the link) and then presuming that the holocaust never happened in the pursuit of my argument. If you want to say it here, you need to prove it here.

We are not at the center of the universe and the laws of probability are resoundingly contrary to our being alone in it. To avoid hypocrisy, I'll show you why:

1) We are moving. The planet moves about the sun, the sun orbits around the galactic center, and the galaxy is hurling at speeds too fast to comprehend towards and away from other nearby galaxies in our cluster and elsewhere. If there was a distinguishable center of the universe, and if we ever found ourselves in it, it would be physically impossible for us to be there for any sustained period of time due to all the motions involved. If you subscribe to the notion that we are possibly unique in being nearby or are orbiting about this particular center, then let me remind you that the exact same argument was posited for the Earth's position in relation to the Sun and planets. As a point of interest, it turned out that the solar system was not geocentric. Hence the word "solar" in its title.

2) If you were to calculate all the variables necessary for intelligent life to arise, and then apply the laws of probability to the number of occurrences one would observe within a given space, you would find that the Universe is more than large enough to accommodate a vast multitude of locations that could harbor intelligent life. The vague estimates we have indicate that anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 intelligent civilizations are lying around us, hidden amongst the cascades of stars that you appear too zealous to fully appreciate for all their magnificence. I suggest heading over to Google Video and looking up "Powers of Ten" and "Cosmic Voyage." The audio on the latter is a bit out of sync but they're both marvelous to watch nonetheless.

EDIT: You also mention in your above post that an all-powerful God (hereafter referred to as "Magic Man") fits Occam's Razor more efficiently than a multiverse. Allow me to draw a parallel: Which is simpler?

1) The gravitational constant, when multiplied by the masses of two objects and then divided by the square of the distance between them, results in the measurement of the acceleration towards each other that those two objects will experience at any given point in time.
2) Magic Man dunnit.

Of course, number two (Magic Man dunnit) will always, always, ALWAYS be simpler than a scientific examination of the facts. That does NOT mean that Magic Man is the answer to everything. Furthermore, in order to prove that Magic Man satisfies Occam's Razor you must first prove that there is a Magic Man, and that he is simpler than integrated calculus. 'Til then, your argument has never, and will never, pass the muster of any truly scientific mind.