The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Seems much more reasonable if you were to "deconstruct" what I wrote earlier to mean that the FTA is so foundationally flawed that it is a non-starter. Why bring up multiverses at all in an attempt to refute the FTA when it severely and needlessly muddies the waters? It's a pointless endeavor. The FTA is a circular argument. Full Stop.

Most arguments are including this one. Which doesn't invalidate them at all. I don't bring up multiverses at all in an attempt to refute the FTA, others do, and then yet others use it as a refutation of nature. To 'prove' God.

Nature self tunes.

It is unclear what you have in mind in the following:
"Most arguments are including this one. Which doesn't invalidate them at all. "

As is your assertion that the FTA is so foundationally flawed that it is a non-starter.

[ThinkOfOne]

Most arguments are including this one. Which doesn't invalidate them at all. I don't bring up multiverses at all in an attempt to refute the FTA, others do, and then yet others use it as a refutation of nature. To 'prove' God.

Nature self tunes.

It is unclear what you have in mind in the following:
"Most arguments are including this one. Which doesn't invalidate them at all. "

As is your assertion that the FTA is so foundationally flawed that it is a non-starter.

Evidently you are either unable or unwilling to provide clarification. Still not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps it's simply because your point is unclear in your mind.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It is unclear what you have in mind in the following:
"Most arguments are including this one. Which doesn't invalidate them at all. "

As is your assertion that the FTA is so foundationally flawed that it is a non-starter.

Evidently you are either unable or unwilling to provide clarification. Still not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps it's simply because your point is unclear in your mind.

I'm unwilling to feed a troll, they are not in the slightest bit interested in clarification.

[ThinkOfOne]

As is your assertion that the FTA is so foundationally flawed that it is a non-starter.

Evidently you are either unable or unwilling to provide clarification. Still not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps it's simply because your point is unclear in your mind.

I'm unwilling to feed a troll, they are not in the slightest bit interested in clarification.

Not sure why you refuse to provide clarification when asked, but okay. It's a valid request. Hopefully this isn't typical of you.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Evidently you are either unable or unwilling to provide clarification. Still not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps it's simply because your point is unclear in your mind.

I'm unwilling to feed a troll, they are not in the slightest bit interested in clarification.

Not sure why you refuse to provide clarification when asked, but okay. It's a valid request. Hopefully this isn't typical of you.

None is necessary. As it isn't for your mere assertion obviously.

[Skepdick]

the Absurdity of Justifying the Refutation of it with Infinite Multiverses.

Now obviously infinite multiverses exist, by strong uniformitarianism (SU)

Obviously how? It's just an arbitrary philosophical assumption.

It's as arbitrary as infinite multi-multiverses; or infinite multi-multi-multi-verses.

It simply becomes a topological argument. How many levels of nesting do you want?

Self-tuning doesn't address anything if you can't explain why any given universe converges towards some equilibrium state; and why different universes might converge to different equilibrium states. Do all universes even converge to an equilibrium?

If you can have multiverses why can't you have two sorts of multi-multi-verses: one with uniform multiverses; one with non-uniform multiverses?

If you allow any kind if plurality/multiplicity in your cosmology; you simply can't prevent infantry/combinatorial explosions via induction.
The only limiting principle at play is Occam's razor which leads directly to theistic thought.

One universe. Fine Tuning explained by a single entity. Of course this posits its own explanatory challenges, but it poses far fewer challenges than explaining a multi-multi-multi-multi-multi-..........-verse.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

the Absurdity of Justifying the Refutation of it with Infinite Multiverses.

Now obviously infinite multiverses exist, by strong uniformitarianism (SU)

(i) Obviously how? It's just an arbitrary philosophical assumption.

(ii) It's as arbitrary as infinite multi-multiverses; or infinite multi-multi-multi-verses.

(iii) It simply becomes a topological argument. How many levels of nesting do you want?

(iv) Self-tuning doesn't address anything if you can't explain why any given universe converges towards some equilibrium state; and why different universes might converge to different equilibrium states. Do all universes even converge to an equilibrium?

(v) If you can have multiverses why can't you have two sorts of multi-multi-verses: one with uniform multiverses; one with non-uniform multiverses?

(vi) If you allow any kind if plurality/multiplicity in your cosmology; you simply can't prevent infantry/combinatorial explosions via induction.
The only limiting principle at play is Occam's razor which leads directly to theistic thought.

(vii) One universe. Fine Tuning explained by a single entity. Of course this posits its own explanatory challenges, but it poses far fewer challenges than explaining a multi-multi-multi-multi-multi-..........-verse.

(i) If one exists, infinite do.
(ii) How?
(iii) None. It's not about nesting.
(iv) They all start indistinguishably. I.e. the same for all intents and purposes. I know of no reason whatsoever to dispense with strong uniformitarianism.
(v) They're not necessary.
(vi) Occam, nature, excludes theism. The utter tracelessness does independently.
(vii) Is that this one universe? Or is this a subset of an infinite universe? Of which there must be infinite. Any singular, particular instantiation is impossible in God (including incarnations) or no. There cannot be one of anything. Only infinite of everything. [One way or the other. Or tending to it in finite entities.] In God or no. Including God of course. There would be infinite. There is, of course, no need for infinite nesting. Universes don't beget universes. Multiverses likewise.

[henry quirk]

If one exists, infinite do.

Sorry, Martin, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Can you explain (caveman-level, if you can)?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If one exists, infinite do.

Sorry, Martin, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Can you explain (caveman-level, if you can)?

That's all I can manage henry.

The existence of only a single, finite universe, in, after eternity, is infinitely more complex, more inexplicable, than the existence of infinite, from eternity. Nature wouldn't do just one finite universe. Neither could God of course. If we say the universe is infinite, a single connected all, beyond this finite observable, and former observable, one, there have to be an infinity of those finite universes in each of an infinity of single connected alls. Which isn't necessary.

What needs more complex explanation?

eternity * eternity (which makes no sense at all, in God or no)

or

...***... i.e an infinity of *s

?

[Skepdick]

(ii) How?

Trivially. Simply keep applying your own principle... And never stop.

(i) If one exists, infinite do.

If one universe... then infinite universes (namely - a multiverse).
If one multiverse ... then infinite multiverses (namely - a multi-multi-verse).
If one multi-multi-verse then infinite multi-multi-verses (namely - a multi-multi-multi-verse)
...
...
...

(iii) None. It's not about nesting.

Oh, but it is.

A multiverse is inhabited by universes.
A multi-multi-verse is inhabited by multiverses.
A multi-multi-multi-verse is inhabited by multi-multi-verses.

(iv) They all start indistinguishably. I.e. the same for all intents and purposes. I know of no reason whatsoever to dispense with strong uniformitarianism.

Indistinguishability implies uniqueness. uniqueness implies 1, not infinity.

(v) They're not necessary.

Then neither are multiverses.

(vi) Occam, nature, excludes theism.

Then it also excludes multiverses.

(vii) Is that this one universe? Or is this a subset of an infinite universe? Of which there must be infinite. Any singular, particular instantiation is impossible in God (including incarnations) or no. There cannot be one of anything. Only infinite of everything.

There can be one of something which is infinite.

[One way or the other. Or tending to it in finite entities.] In God or no. Including God of course. There would be infinite. There is, of course, no need for infinite nesting. Universes don't beget universes. Multiverses likewise.

A set of universes is a multiverse. Which is universes nested in a set.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I guess my bucket has too many holes in it cuz in no way does a multiverse seem more reasonable, sensible, or logical than a universe (closed or open; finite or infinite).

What needs more complex explanation?

I wanted a simpler one (fit for a caveman).

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yeah, I guess my bucket has too many holes in it cuz in no way does a multiverse seem more reasonable, sensible, or logical than a universe (closed or open; finite or infinite).

What needs more complex explanation?

I wanted a simpler one (fit for a caveman).

OK.

If you discovered a flower (universe) growing in your window box that is glaringly new to science, and no one else ever did, is that easier or harder to explain than dandelions (multiverse)?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(ii) How?

Trivially. Simply keep applying your own principle... And never stop.

(i) If one exists, infinite do.

If one universe... then infinite universes (namely - a multiverse).
If one multiverse ... then infinite multiverses (namely - a multi-multi-verse).
If one multi-multi-verse then infinite multi-multi-verses (namely - a multi-multi-multi-verse)
...
...
...

(iii) None. It's not about nesting.

Oh, but it is.

A multiverse is inhabited by universes.
A multi-multi-verse is inhabited by multiverses.
A multi-multi-multi-verse is inhabited by multi-multi-verses.

(iv) They all start indistinguishably. I.e. the same for all intents and purposes. I know of no reason whatsoever to dispense with strong uniformitarianism.

Indistinguishability implies uniqueness. uniqueness implies 1, not infinity.

(v) They're not necessary.

Then neither are multiverses.

(vi) Occam, nature, excludes theism.

Then it also excludes multiverses.

(vii) Is that this one universe? Or is this a subset of an infinite universe? Of which there must be infinite. Any singular, particular instantiation is impossible in God (including incarnations) or no. There cannot be one of anything. Only infinite of everything.

There can be one of something which is infinite.

[One way or the other. Or tending to it in finite entities.] In God or no. Including God of course. There would be infinite. There is, of course, no need for infinite nesting. Universes don't beget universes. Multiverses likewise.

A set of universes is a multiverse. Which is universes nested in a set.

Whatever you say.

[Skepdick]

Whatever you say.

Precisely how it works...

You can say a universe exists.
You can say a multiverse exists.
You can say a multi-multi-verse exists.

You can say whatever.

[henry quirk]

I do believe, Skep, we've been given the brush off.