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?

[Greatest I Am]

If by that you mean I do not have faith, you would be correct. Faith by definition is belief without evidence. That doesn't fly by me.

And nothing in your magical Scriptures indicates that Magic Man gives a rat's rectum about what you think regarding His reality or His works. It does mention free will, however. Stop making up your arguments as you go along.

Not at all. I was trying to indicate that we are too apposed to have meaningful discussions.

Regards
DL

[olivergringold]

It is an artificial opposition. One of us is approaching the argument with facts, the other with faith. That is what I meant by my reply: I have no faith. In anything. Under any circumstance. All my "beliefs" rely on evidence and are all subject to change as new information pours in. You use your spiritualism to prove to yourself that spiritualism is good because you enjoy being spiritual.

How you fail to see your logical shortcoming is baffling.

[QED]

God is sitting on His throne and creating many universes and many earths. Scripture indicates that He is quite capable.
Just because the general consensus is that God screwed up this universe and earth and man does not make it so, but if true, would only add imputes to God going out and try, try, again.

In a sense I really would like to be forced to conclude that there is a God sitting on some metaphorical throne "out there". The problem I have is that this also matches the functional description of the "many universes" that scripture tells us God is capable of creating. Note the shift -- with lots of universes of varied specification, we are capable of selecting our own -- just as we are capable of selecting our own human existence out of a vast sea of biological possibilities (I keep on harping about this point because I feel sure that it has the power to dislodge a particular penny that's failed to drop in some people's minds).

Perhaps we could imagine this in the following way: Let's equate our universe with a soap bubble that has a radius of one centimeter (+/- some vanishingly small amount). As hypothetical occupants of that bubble we could regard the remarkably uniform radius as evidence of careful and deliberate engineering. But if, in fact, we were one of many random bubbles that happened to have such a tight-specification would it make any difference if they were being blown by a human or by a bubble machine?

Whether all Scripture was inspired by God, or by human interpretations of existence as they saw it (as I think it's more reasonable to believe) then the "multiverse" has all the look and feel of an "intelligent creator" while being nothing more than "more of the (approximate) same".

[otseng]

A theist will inevitably present God as the ultimate explanation for all phenomena.

True. But that doesn't mean that the theist will present God as the only explanation for every phenomenon. If there is a completely naturalistic explanation that is supportable by logical reasoning and empirical evidence, then God does not need to enter the picture. The analogy that olivergringold presented, the gravitational constant, is explainable by natural means. And I certainly for one do not invoke a deity to explain it. If no theist is saying that God is the answer to the gravitational constant, then it is an irrelevant argument.

If we want to know how the apparent fine-tuning of our universe came to be selected, we want to know in the same spirit as we want to know what makes lightning happen for example.

For explaining lightning, there is a naturalistic explanation that is accepted by all and we don't need to invoke Thor.

For the vast majority of cases there is a naturalistic explanation. However, some are better explained by a non-naturalistic explanation.

I have argued many times that it is wholly unreasonable to put God on one side of an explanatory balance and pretend that he's such a light-weight when we would also claim that his efforts were sufficient to fill a finely-tuned universe with so much "cleverly interacting stuff".

That's why my main argument is on comparing the underlying assumptions. I see you've addressed the assumptions I've raised and I'll get to that below.

God has no such quantity of "understandable mass" with the capacity to deliver the goods.

It then seems like you have dismissed the God possibility before the horse is even out of the gate. God can never be an answer because God is not "understandable".

The necessity stems from its capacity to deliver an understandable mechanism. If we are at liberty to allow Occam's Razor to decide between "black-box" systems that only "explain" by virtue of a label on the outside of the box declaring things like "GOD inside -- explains everything! (But please don't ask how GOD works)" we can match that with any other box with similar labelling.

I don't believe I'm just simply throwing out a "black box" answer. I would admit that it does little for debates by simply throwing out "God did it" to any question posed. But, again, my main tactic is addressing the fundamental assumptions and then coming to a conclusion based on analyzing those.

The reason for this tactic is that I think that's the only thing we can argue about. The only empirical evidence we have is the apparent fine-tuning of the constants in the universe. We have no empirical evidence of a creator and none for other universes. So, what else is left to judge with? The only thing I see are the assumptions.

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.

This depends on how you are defining "our universe". If you mean the visible portion, then I'd have to remind you that it appears our universe is expanding at greater than light speed which mandates the existence of "universe" beyond observable range. This is widely held to imply (for all practical purposes) an infinite region with which we have no communication with at all.

By universe, I would include the unobservable universe also. Basically anything that originated from the same Big Bang that caused our observable universe.

I must remind you that when I say "multiverse" I use that term to refer to any additional "state-space" for what we might call "physics".

By using my definition of universe, where would the "multiverse" fall in?

In the many, there are also further assumptions:
- other universes can exist

I would say that this is a "given" by the FTL expansion rate of our "universe".

By using "universe" as the unobservable universe, then it would not be a given.

- a bunch of those other universes exist

This can be reduced to disparate regions within the same "universe" (i.e. in the vast unobservable portion of our own universe).

Then what this is implying is that different parts of the same (unobservable) universe can have differing constants. Why would the constants be different based on what we can observe or not if it is in the same universe?

- each of them have the same laws of physics and mathematics as ours
- they all have differing constants

I'm not sure what it means to have different laws of mathematics, but I'll certainly go along with that final assumption -- that the values of the constants, and possibly the physics into which we "plug them in", would vary from "place to place" such that some "places" were more hospitable to physicists than others.

In each universe, the following would be true:
F = ma
e = mc^2
1 + 1 = 2
1 x 1 = 1
etc

In order for differing constants to be meaningful, the laws of physics and mathematics would have to be the same.

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

OK, well it's tempting to ask what independent arguments/evidence you're referring to. Perhaps you would like to link me to what you think are the best three evidences so we can get some feeling for their weight in this argument.

I listed them here.

But I think your compulsion to introduce these additional arguments is a tacit acknowledgment of the inherent ambiguity created by our incomplete "view" of the greater context in which we are situated.

My point is that an explanation becomes stronger when there are independent arguments/evidence to corroborate it. The more witnesses one has, the stronger the case.

[olivergringold]

True. But that doesn't mean that the theist will present God as the only explanation for every phenomenon. If there is a completely naturalistic explanation that is supportable by logical reasoning and empirical evidence, then God does not need to enter the picture. The analogy that olivergringold presented, the gravitational constant, is explainable by natural means. And I certainly for one do not invoke a deity to explain it. If no theist is saying that God is the answer to the gravitational constant, then it is an irrelevant argument.

When Newton couldn't figure out why gravitational pulls from other planets in the solar system weren't off-setting the Earth's orbit about the sun, he, for the only time in his career, attributed it to God. Only later was it discovered that his equation for gravity was slightly off, and that the mass of the other planets was not powerful enough to disrupt Earth's orbit. Prior to Newton, "gravity" (though it had no scientific name) was attributed specifically and exclusively to God. Your statement below is far more telling than any refutation I can post in this paragraph.

For the vast majority of cases there is a naturalistic explanation. However, some are better explained by a non-naturalistic explanation.

Now I am free to rant: The God of the Gaps has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been correct under any circumstance, ever, and never will be. Man has always assigned spiritualism to observed chaos...only later to find out that it was never chaos to begin with. Saying "God did it because we have no scientific explanation yet" is one of the lamest and least valid cop-outs in all of religious history.

It then seems like you have dismissed the God possibility before the horse is even out of the gate. God can never be an answer because God is not "understandable".

Rather than complaining that God is disqualified, why not stop dodging the question and try to qualify Him? The answer: Because you can't explain him with science. Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence, and you don't want to be faced with that because of all the stock you put into justifying your religion with pseudo-scientific claims. Yes, God is disqualified. A curse upon science be it any other way: Faith does not belong. If you want to attempt to take God outside of a faith context and turn Him into an "understandable mass," go for it. Until then your argument doesn't fly. Ever.

And for the love of Pete, stop dodging my replies. That just paints you all over in very discrediting ways.

[Ncik666]

I think I stated this before but I think I'll keep saying it. The laws of mathematics may be different but that doesn't neccesarily mean that "life" couldn't have existed. I truly believe that the universe only looks designed because we live here. Any other situation with different mathematical laws, would amount to the same conclusion. "this universe is designed because it is well suited to it" When the conclusion should be "We are well suited to this Universe because we exist here"

[Caligar]

In each universe, the following would be true:
F = ma
e = mc^2
1 + 1 = 2
1 x 1 = 1
etc

Forgive my potential ignorance, but in a different universe wouldent e equal a different amount, since the gravitational potential energy would be more/less if there is a different amount of matter in the universe? (assuming its true that the range of gravity is infinite)

[QED]

If there is a completely naturalistic explanation that is supportable by logical reasoning and empirical evidence, then God does not need to enter the picture.

For explaining lightning, there is a naturalistic explanation that is accepted by all and we don't need to invoke Thor.

For the vast majority of cases there is a naturalistic explanation. However, some are better explained by a non-naturalistic explanation.

So, in the case of the apparent fine-tuning, despite the fact that we have a definite horizon (so we have no idea what the wider context is for our visible region) you would say God is a better explanation for how physics has come to be the way it is. To sign-up to this..............

I have argued many times that it is wholly unreasonable to put God on one side of an explanatory balance and pretend that he's such a light-weight when we would also claim that his efforts were sufficient to fill a finely-tuned universe with so much "cleverly interacting stuff".

That's why my main argument is on comparing the underlying assumptions. I see you've addressed the assumptions I've raised and I'll get to that below.

God has no such quantity of "understandable mass" with the capacity to deliver the goods.

It then seems like you have dismissed the God possibility before the horse is even out of the gate. God can never be an answer because God is not "understandable".

The necessity stems from its capacity to deliver an understandable mechanism. If we are at liberty to allow Occam's Razor to decide between "black-box" systems that only "explain" by virtue of a label on the outside of the box declaring things like "GOD inside -- explains everything! (But please don't ask how GOD works)" we can match that with any other box with similar labelling.

I don't believe I'm just simply throwing out a "black box" answer. I would admit that it does little for debates by simply throwing out "God did it" to any question posed. But, again, my main tactic is addressing the fundamental assumptions and then coming to a conclusion based on analyzing those.

The reason for this tactic is that I think that's the only thing we can argue about. The only empirical evidence we have is the apparent fine-tuning of the constants in the universe. We have no empirical evidence of a creator and none for other universes. So, what else is left to judge with? The only thing I see are the assumptions.

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.

This depends on how you are defining "our universe". If you mean the visible portion, then I'd have to remind you that it appears our universe is expanding at greater than light speed which mandates the existence of "universe" beyond observable range. This is widely held to imply (for all practical purposes) an infinite region with which we have no communication with at all.

By universe, I would include the unobservable universe also. Basically anything that originated from the same Big Bang that caused our observable universe.

I must remind you that when I say "multiverse" I use that term to refer to any additional "state-space" for what we might call "physics".

By using my definition of universe, where would the "multiverse" fall in?

In the many, there are also further assumptions:
- other universes can exist

I would say that this is a "given" by the FTL expansion rate of our "universe".

By using "universe" as the unobservable universe, then it would not be a given.

- a bunch of those other universes exist

This can be reduced to disparate regions within the same "universe" (i.e. in the vast unobservable portion of our own universe).

Then what this is implying is that different parts of the same (unobservable) universe can have differing constants. Why would the constants be different based on what we can observe or not if it is in the same universe?

- each of them have the same laws of physics and mathematics as ours
- they all have differing constants

I'm not sure what it means to have different laws of mathematics, but I'll certainly go along with that final assumption -- that the values of the constants, and possibly the physics into which we "plug them in", would vary from "place to place" such that some "places" were more hospitable to physicists than others.

In each universe, the following would be true:
F = ma
e = mc^2
1 + 1 = 2
1 x 1 = 1
etc

In order for differing constants to be meaningful, the laws of physics and mathematics would have to be the same.

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

OK, well it's tempting to ask what independent arguments/evidence you're referring to. Perhaps you would like to link me to what you think are the best three evidences so we can get some feeling for their weight in this argument.

I listed them here.

But I think your compulsion to introduce these additional arguments is a tacit acknowledgment of the inherent ambiguity created by our incomplete "view" of the greater context in which we are situated.

My point is that an explanation becomes stronger when there are independent arguments/evidence to corroborate it. The more witnesses one has, the stronger the case.[/quote]

[otseng]

I think I stated this before but I think I'll keep saying it. The laws of mathematics may be different but that doesn't neccesarily mean that "life" couldn't have existed. I truly believe that the universe only looks designed because we live here. Any other situation with different mathematical laws, would amount to the same conclusion. "this universe is designed because it is well suited to it" When the conclusion should be "We are well suited to this Universe because we exist here"

Let us suppose that there exists another universe where the laws of mathematics is different from our universe. And let us even suppose that some sort of complex life exists in the alternate universe. However, this does not address the apparent fine-tuning of the constants for our universe.

Forgive my potential ignorance, but in a different universe wouldent e equal a different amount, since the gravitational potential energy would be more/less if there is a different amount of matter in the universe? (assuming its true that the range of gravity is infinite)

Ignorance forgiven.

[olivergringold]

Let us suppose that there exists another universe where the laws of mathematics is different from our universe. And let us even suppose that some sort of complex life exists in the alternate universe. However, this does not address the apparent fine-tuning of the constants for our universe.

I am inspired to recall the example delivered by the exemplary author Douglas Adams: Yours is an example analogous to a puddle claiming that the hole it finds itself in must have been designed to fit it.

The Universe is not designed for us, but rather we happen to find ourselves in this particular Universe. It only makes sense that our parameters for existence align with those permissible here...they're the only game in town. If you're allowing that intelligent life would exist in another Universe with different constants, then the entire notion of design goes out the window with it.