Multiverse!

[Obvious Leo]

Raw thought. What you're doing is claiming that the universe was created in accordance with a suite of laws of unknown origin. This is a Platonist world-view and patently unscientific.

[Philosophy Explorer]

The existence or non-existence of universes external to the one we inhabit is not a legitimate question for either scientific or philosophical enquiry because by definition no evidence for or against the proposition is possible, even in principle.

The Goldilocks argument is simply dodgy logic. Our universe is suitable for life because it has life in it and for no other reason. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is beneath the purview of any philosopher worthy of the name.

I repeat, scientists say they can test it.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I repeat, scientists say they can test it.

I've read such claims before, Phil, but I've yet to see them tested. I've also only seen them made by a very few scientists of not very great repute. I say let's see the dark matter first because they've been spruiking that for over 80 years. In addition to this they've still got the sticky problem of uncaused events to deal with, reverse causation, the grandfather paradox, the black hole firewall, the curved space, etc. I could go on at considerable length listing all the astonishing claims that physicists have been making for the past century but not fucking one of them has been demonstrated.

Let's try and remember that this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum and in philosophy we operate to a standard of truth which includes making sense. How the fuck can you prove the existence of something which isn't in the universe?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I repeat, scientists say they can test it.

I've read such claims before, Phil, but I've yet to see them tested. I've also only seen them made by a very few scientists of not very great repute. I say let's see the dark matter first because they've been spruiking that for over 80 years. In addition to this they've still got the sticky problem of uncaused events to deal with, reverse causation, the grandfather paradox, the black hole firewall, the curved space, etc. I could go on at considerable length listing all the astonishing claims that physicists have been making for the past century but not fucking one of them has been demonstrated.

Let's try and remember that this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum and in philosophy we operate to a standard of truth which includes making sense. How the fuck can you prove the existence of something which isn't in the universe?

In answer to the last question, that would be the scientists' business. As far as reputation goes, if the scientists can prove/disprove on the basis of the testing, that would make the scientists' reputation (and maybe a Nobel prize though I doubt it). As far as making sense goes, as I suggested, some problems seem to be unsolvable (and keep in mind that if the scientists have made claims for thousands of years shows how hard the problems are and how limited our resources are towards solving these problems). Keep in mind that many things that seemed improbable years ago exist today (the airplane e.g. and Dr Louis Pasteur's colleagues gave him the cold shoulder initially). So ultimately, who are we to judge?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

, if the scientists can prove/disprove on the basis of the testing,

It is a simple truth of the scientific method that no empirical testing can EVER prove a hypothesis true. NEVER EVER. However, in principle at least, it should always be possible to prove a dodgy hypothesis false. However in the case of the multiverse hypothesis even this cannot apply, just as it can't for the god hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis and the god hypothesis are in the same category of claims because both lie beyond the reach of scientific enquiry.

However the Goldilocks argument being advanced here is simply bogus logic and has nothing to with physics. Firstly it assumes that which it seeks to establish, namely that the observed order in our universe is a consequence of a suite of physical laws of unknown origin and a vast array of mathematical constants which are solely derived from observation and fed into the models by hand. These can be changed at any time in the light of future observations. Can you not see the intrinsic tautology here?

The Goldilocks argument is simply a question of misunderstanding the nature of determinism and thus getting cause and effect arse about. The universe we observe is not the way it is because there are laws and constants which have determined it should be that way. The universe is the way it is because that's the way we it has evolved to be and it is we who have invented these laws and constants to model this evolutionary process.

It's not the laws of physics which are making the universe but the universe which is making the laws of physics.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Leo said [with a grammar correction]:

"The Goldilocks argument is simply a question of misunderstanding the nature of determinism and thus getting cause and effect arse about. The universe we observe is not the way it is because there are laws and constants which have determined it should be that way. The universe is the way it is because that's the way it has evolved to be and it is we who have invented these laws and constants to model this evolutionary process."

How do you know that's the way the universe is if all we have are models to work with?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

How do you know that's the way the universe is if all we have are models to work with?

Because the only alternative is a universe with a beginning, a proposition which mandates an external causal agent. Whatever you decide to call such an agent such a created universe is insufficient to its own existence and thus by definition unknowable. I'm a philosopher, Phil, and if I had ever suspected for a single moment that our universe must be unknowable by definition then I would have reached for my hemlock long ago.

You may regard this stance as a matter of conceptual taste but that the universe is everything that exists is a proposition on which I have predicated my entire life's work in philosophy, on the grounds that a bloke's gotta start somewhere. I regard this as a metaphysical first principle and although I freely concede that as such it is not provable I also know fucking well that it is not disprovable.

[henry quirk]

"Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse."

I look forward to the results.

Till those results are presented: I'm stickin' with 'no multiverse'.

[henry quirk]

"The existence or non-existence of universes external to the one we inhabit is not a legitimate question for either scientific or philosophical enquiry because by definition no evidence for or against the proposition is possible, even in principle."

Thank all the Infernal Powers, then, that I'm no scientist or philosopher...I get to ask all the silly questions I like (and answer 'em too).

[raw_thought]

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non¬religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.’
FROM
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10 ... nt-creator
I guess I won’t receive a Nobel Prize! Obvious syllogisms have been thought of many times before.
1. Our Universe is outrageously fit for life.
2. This can be because it is
A: fine-tuned which implies a God
Or
B: not fine-tuned.
The only reasonable explanation for how “B” can create a universe so outrageously fit for life is the multiverse theory. If there are trillions (perhaps even infinite) amount of universes, most would not have constants capable of allowing life. However, a tiny percent will. Obviously, we must be in that tiny percentile. It is nothing miraculous. For example, if I toss a coin one hundred times and it is heads 100 times that is vastly improbable (similarly, if there is only one universe, it is vastly unlikely that that universe will have constants exactly suitable for life.). However, if I toss a coin 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times it is very likely that at some point there will be 100 heads in a row.

[raw_thought]

Raw thought. What you're doing is claiming that the universe was created in accordance with a suite of laws of unknown origin. This is a Platonist world-view and patently unscientific.

?????????????
See above!!!
Your question shows that you have no understanding of what I ( and the Discover magazine) are talking about. I am saying that the multiverse is natural and not Platonic or Theological.

[henry quirk]

"Our Universe is outrageously fit for life."

Is it?

Earth is...yet to be seen how many earth-like planets there are. And, no matter how many there are, each is just a tiny isle in a vast inhospitable space.

Seems to me the universe is outrageously hostile to life.

[Obvious Leo]

Raw thought.

Show me just one piece of evidence that the universe is made in accordance with any physical law.

[raw_thought]

Raw thought. What you're doing is claiming that the universe was created in accordance with a suite of laws of unknown origin. This is a Platonist world-view and patently unscientific.

I am saying that there is no explanation for the fire that instantiates the equations (Hawking). That would become an infinite regress. When there is no explanation (laws of nature) everything is allowed. Everything happens, the multiverse! There is no Platonic realm that dictates (or explains) the nature of the multiverse.

[raw_thought]

"Our Universe is outrageously fit for life."

Is it?

Earth is...yet to be seen how many earth-like planets there are. And, no matter how many there are, each is just a tiny isle in a vast inhospitable space.

Seems to me the universe is outrageously hostile to life.

Read the link to the Discover magazine article. You will see that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life.