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?

[acamp1]

I'd encourage you to read through those threads and then decide based on the evidence.

Thanks, I will. If only to satisfy my curiosity about how a person as obviously intelligent as you could possibly rationalize such a view!

[otseng]

Osteng, the only evidences you have provided are ones which satisfy your own mind.

Yes, it does satisfy my mind. But that in itself proves nothing either way. However, I do quite strongly believe that the evidence is in my favor.

You bring up some interesting points, but I think points easily refutable. But, I do not wish to hijack this thread. Please post in the relevant threads and I'll respond to you there.

I'd encourage you to read through those threads and then decide based on the evidence.

Thanks, I will. If only to satisfy my curiosity about how a person as obviously intelligent as you could possibly rationalize such a view!

I appreciate that.

[olivergringold]

You still haven't commented on my refutation of your Magic Man.

[otseng]

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.

It's a false comparison. There's only two things we are considering here. One is a "designer creator". Another is "one of many universes". Neither can be measured directly.

We are not talking about here the gravitational constant, so it's a straw man argument.

[olivergringold]

The Big Bang theory is based on calculations of matter-strung-to-null in black holes, ran backwards. However, outside of space, there's nothing to limit space from forming in an infinite number of varieties because, outside of space, there's no space to run out of. Since null is strung into us, it makes sense that null could be strung into any number of things. The concept of a multiverse is not a hypothesis so much as it's an interpretation of the consequences of the Big Bang. It's referred to as a hypothesis because, by definition, it is impossible to test.

In short, I wasn't making a false comparison, and Magic Man didn't do it.

[QED]

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?

I think you were quite wrong to reject olivergringold's analogy. A theist will inevitably present God as the ultimate explanation for all phenomena. If we set up your test against anything at all, God will (by the very definition of God as creator of all things) always be the simpler explanation.

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. While some would have it that the electrons forming the static charge are ultimately of God's making, we still know how the process works in greater detail than did the ancients who would have simply explained lighting as coming directly from God.

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". Putting a "multiverse" on the other side of the balance we can see how a (virtually infinite) amount of "mainly useless stuff" lets us select our own existence (in a similar way to how we get to select our own human existence from a huge sea of biological possibilities). God has no such quantity of "understandable mass" with the capacity to deliver the goods.

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.

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. But if we have an understandable system, with a reasonable amount of mathematical integrity and compatibility with known systems, then I would say this deserves some real credit. Much more than we deserve to get by simply slapping labels on things.

Please keep in mind the different "explanations" for lightning if and when you respond to this.

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. 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". We accept that within our own visible region "physics" is the same everywhere, but we wouldn't lightly extend that assumption to infinity. Several cosmological models generate an expectation of inhomogeneity at larger scales.

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".

- 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).

- 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.

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. 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.

[Greatest I Am]

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.

Regards
DL

[olivergringold]

If Magic Man had to "try-try-again" then he wouldn't be Magic Man. If it was our free will that mucked up this attempt, then any other attempt Magic Man makes will be equally doomed. If it was poor design and not our free will, then Magic Man is just a crummy architect.

And you still haven't validated Scripture in any way, nor proven the existence of Magic Man, nor proven that he best fits Occam's Razor. And if Scripture were true, then why would there be so much contradictory evidence to its claims on the origins of life and the Universe?

[Greatest I Am]

If Magic Man had to "try-try-again" then he wouldn't be Magic Man. If it was our free will that mucked up this attempt, then any other attempt Magic Man makes will be equally doomed. If it was poor design and not our free will, then Magic Man is just a crummy architect.

And you still haven't validated Scripture in any way, nor proven the existence of Magic Man, nor proven that he best fits Occam's Razor. And if Scripture were true, then why would there be so much contradictory evidence to its claims on the origins of life and the Universe?

I don't think God gave anyone the power to screw up His reality or His works.

As to proof, there is no proof that you would believe short of a miracle and I have none to offer.
There is nothing else you would believe, is there?

Regards
DL

[olivergringold]

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.