The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

[Skepdick]

I don't think it. I know it. That's what it entails. In my beholder's share. He'd agree.

I don't think. I know that you don't understand Kolmogorov complexity.

Ceteris paribus a multiverse necessarily contains more information than a uniform universe.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't think it. I know it. That's what it entails. In my beholder's share. He'd agree.

I don't think. I know that you don't understand Kolmogorov complexity.

Ceteris paribus a multiverse necessarily contains more information than a uniform universe.

But it's not transferable. What we know. To each other. I know that too. What's a uniform universe? As opposed to a universe? Or is it opposed to a multiverse? And why can't that be uniform?

PS How much story is necessary to explain an infinite, eternal, natural multiverse and a single, solitary, finite universe? You know, in qualitative terms. Levels of complexity.

[Skepdick]

But it's not transferable. What we know. To each other. I know that too. What's a uniform universe? As opposed to a universe? Or is it opposed to a multiverse? And why can't that be uniform?

OK. Lets suppose that "uniform" universe is meaningless. A universe is a universe is a universe.

A uniform multiverse would be a multiverse in which all constituent universes are the same e.g simply replicas of one another.
A non-uniform multiverse would be a multiverse in which all constituent universes are different.

Even in this convention a uniform multiverse is more Kolmogorov-complex than a universe.

This is trivially and obviously true; because in addition to describing the universe; you also have to describe the mechanism for replicating it ad infinitum to form a multiverse.

[Skepdick]

PS How much story is necessary to explain an infinite, eternal, natural multiverse and a single, solitary, finite universe? You know, in qualitative terms. Levels of complexity.

I have no idea what you are asking. Asking "how much" is a quantitative; not a qualitative question.

In what units do you want it quantified?

Qualitatively how much story is necessary to explain something finite vs something infinite?

It depends on whether the infinite thing has some describable structure or not.


For example; the natural numbers can be trivially described in Haskell with "[0..]". That's all you need to describe induction on 0. An ordered set with a least element; and no maximal element; whereas a truly random; finite set of the natural numbers would require specifying each and every element.

Infinite objects with structure compress better than finite objects without structure.

In general structured data (even if infinite) usually has lower Kolmogorov complexity than unstructured data.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But it's not transferable. What we know. To each other. I know that too. What's a uniform universe? As opposed to a universe? Or is it opposed to a multiverse? And why can't that be uniform?

OK. Lets suppose that "uniform" universe is meaningless. A universe is a universe is a universe.

A uniform multiverse would be a multiverse in which all constituent universes are the same e.g simply replicas of one another.
A non-uniform multiverse would be a multiverse in which all constituent universes are different.

Even in this convention a uniform multiverse is more Kolmogorov-complex than a universe.

This is trivially and obviously true; because in addition to describing the universe; you also have to describe the mechanism for replicating it ad infinitum to form a multiverse.

If you say so.

The multiverse is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed. You have to explain the complexity of a single solitary finite universe being created.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

PS How much story is necessary to explain an infinite, eternal, natural multiverse and a single, solitary, finite universe? You know, in qualitative terms. Levels of complexity.

I have no idea what you are asking. Asking "how much" is a quantitative; not a qualitative question.

In what units do you want it quantified?

Qualitatively how much story is necessary to explain something finite vs something infinite?

It depends on whether the infinite thing has some describable structure or not.


For example; the natural numbers can be trivially described in Haskell with "[0..]". That's all you need to describe induction on 0. An ordered set with a least element; and no maximal element; whereas a truly random; finite set of the natural numbers would require specifying each and every element.

Infinite objects with structure compress better than finite objects without structure.

In general structured data (even if infinite) usually has lower Kolmogorov complexity than unstructured data.

The complexity of the story of a single, solitary, finite universe has unnatural qualities. Not unnatural quantities.

[Skepdick]

The complexity of the story of a single, solitary, finite universe has unnatural qualities. Not unnatural quantities.

I also have no idea what that means.

Whatever qualities the universe has - they are universal qualities.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The complexity of the story of a single, solitary, finite universe has unnatural qualities. Not unnatural quantities.

I also have no idea what that means.

Whatever qualities the universe has - they are universal qualities.

Thank you for your beholder's share.

[Skepdick]

If you say so.

The multiverse is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed. You have to explain the complexity of a single solitary finite universe being created.

You continue with the conceptual confusion.

The {universe|multiverse} is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed.
The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed multiverse would be higher than that of the The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed universe.

The {universe|multiverse} may be finite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the finite multiverse would be higher than that of the finite universe.
The {universe|multiverse| may be infinite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the infinite multiverse would be higher than that of the infinite universe.
The {universe|multiverse} may be created. The Kolmogorov complexity of the created multiverse would be higher than that of the created universe.

Those are separate concerns!

Regardless of what specific attributes you assign (eternal, finite, created, etc.), a multiverse will inherently require more information to describe than a universe with those same attributes, because you need additional information to describe the collection of multiple universes and their relationships.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If you say so.

The multiverse is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed. You have to explain the complexity of a single solitary finite universe being created.

You continue with the conceptual confusion.

The {universe|multiverse} is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed.
The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed multiverse would be higher than that of the The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed universe.

The {universe|multiverse} may be finite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the finite multiverse would be higher than that of the finite universe.
The {universe|multiverse| may be infinite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the infinite multiverse would be higher than that of the infinite universe.
The {universe|multiverse} may be created. The Kolmogorov complexity of the created multiverse would be higher than that of the created universe.

Those are separate concerns!

Regardless of what specific attributes you assign (eternal, finite, created, etc.), a multiverse will inherently require more information to describe than a universe with those same attributes, because you need additional information to describe the collection of multiple universes and their relationships.

The confusion is entirely yours, projected.

A single, solitary, finite universe cannot form itself, ex nihilo. Cannot be the only entity to come in to existence. Or be created by God. That would be infinitely more complex, require infinitely more upon infinitely more than an eternal infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), of 4-D m-branes colliding in 5-D bulk hyperspace or whatever. More so even than God doing the latter. Which at least would require one order of infinity less. Still too many of course.

Nature may not self tune, of course, c etc may well be truly constant upon being necessary. That's more conservative. At what point that is in the timeline of the first scintilla of existence (and why would that have to have any lower Planck limits?) is unknown.

[Age]

If you say so.

The multiverse is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed. You have to explain the complexity of a single solitary finite universe being created.

You continue with the conceptual confusion.

The {universe|multiverse} is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed.
The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed multiverse would be higher than that of the The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed universe.

The {universe|multiverse} may be finite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the finite multiverse would be higher than that of the finite universe.
The {universe|multiverse| may be infinite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the infinite multiverse would be higher than that of the infinite universe.
The {universe|multiverse} may be created. The Kolmogorov complexity of the created multiverse would be higher than that of the created universe.

Those are separate concerns!

Regardless of what specific attributes you assign (eternal, finite, created, etc.), a multiverse will inherently require more information to describe than a universe with those same attributes, because you need additional information to describe the collection of multiple universes and their relationships.

The confusion is entirely yours, projected.

Why is it so hard and too complex for 'this one' to just comprehend and understand the absolute simplistic explanation provided by "skepdick", here?

[Age]

The {universe|multiverse} may be finite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the finite multiverse would be higher than that of the finite universe.
The {universe|multiverse| may be infinite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the infinite multiverse would be higher than that of the infinite universe.
The {universe|multiverse} may be created. The Kolmogorov complexity of the created multiverse would be higher than that of the created universe.

Just to clarify, here;

There can only ever be just One Universe.

This One Universe can only ever be infinite, and eternal.

This One, eternal and infinite, Universe can only ever be what actually exists.

These claims have be proved to be irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, and therefore are also irrefutable Facts.

Therefore, this means that there are not multiverses and there is not a finite universe.

And, as always if anyone else would like to learn, see, understand, and to also know the proofs for these Facts, then, as always, let 'us' just have a discussion.

But, if you people want to keep holding onto your 'current' views, beliefs, and/or presumptions, here, then you will just keep on doing what you have been, here.

[Age]

If you say so.

The multiverse is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed. You have to explain the complexity of a single solitary finite universe being created.

You continue with the conceptual confusion.

The {universe|multiverse} is eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed.
The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed multiverse would be higher than that of the The Kolmogorov complexity of the eternally formed, formed from eternity. Self-formed universe.

The {universe|multiverse} may be finite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the finite multiverse would be higher than that of the finite universe.
The {universe|multiverse| may be infinite. The Kolmogorov complexity of the infinite multiverse would be higher than that of the infinite universe.
The {universe|multiverse} may be created. The Kolmogorov complexity of the created multiverse would be higher than that of the created universe.

Those are separate concerns!

Regardless of what specific attributes you assign (eternal, finite, created, etc.), a multiverse will inherently require more information to describe than a universe with those same attributes, because you need additional information to describe the collection of multiple universes and their relationships.

The confusion is entirely yours, projected.

A single, solitary, finite universe cannot form itself, ex nihilo.

Therefore, a single, solitary, finite universe is logically/theoretically and physically/empirically impossible. Now that 'that' has been, once and for always, resolved, 'we' can, finally, move along, here.

Cannot be the only entity to come in to existence. Or be created by God. That would be infinitely more complex, require infinitely more upon infinitely more than an eternal infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), of 4-D m-branes colliding in 5-D bulk hyperspace or whatever.

1. The fact that a 'finite universe' is impossible to happen and occur has already been resolved.

2. Why do you believe, absolutely, that a single, solitary, finite universe would be 'infinitely' 'more complex' than a single, solitary, infinite multiverse, exactly?

Surely 'trying to' explain just one single, solitary, finite universe would be a lot 'less complex' than 'trying to' explain a multitude of single, solitary, finite universes in your made up 'multiverse' theory.

Or, had you not considered 'this', yet?

More so even than God doing the latter.

Why even bring in another layer of 'complexity', here, which is obviously completely necessary?

I suggest you find out what actually exists, first, before bringing in more and more completely unnecessary things.

Which at least would require one order of infinity less. Still too many of course.

Nature may not self tune, of course, c etc may well be truly constant upon being necessary. That's more conservative. At what point that is in the timeline of the first scintilla of existence (and why would that have to have any lower Planck limits?) is unknown.

But, these things are already known. Well just not by you, yet.

Just to clarify, here;

There can only ever be just One Universe.

This One Universe can only ever be infinite, and eternal.

This One, eternal and infinite, Universe can only ever be what actually exists.

These claims have be proved to be irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, and therefore are also irrefutable Facts.

Therefore, this means that there are not multiverses and there is not a finite universe.

And, as always if anyone else would like to learn, see, understand, and to also know the proofs for these Facts, then, as always, let 'us' just have a discussion.

But, if you people want to keep holding onto your 'current' views, beliefs, and/or presumptions, here, then you will just keep on doing what you have been, here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That's art for you mate.

[Skepdick]

The confusion is entirely yours, projected.

That's demonstrably false.

A single, solitary, finite universe cannot form itself, ex nihilo.

You are conflating multiple issues here.

The (in?)finitude of the {uni|multi}verse.
The origin of the {uni|multi}verse.

You are conflating the complexity of {uni|multi}verse with the complexity with that which originates the {uni|multi}verse.

If X forms a universe; and Y forms a multiverse inhabited by universes then Y is more complex than X.

Cannot be the only entity to come in to existence. Or be created by God. That would be infinitely more complex, require infinitely more upon infinitely more than an eternal infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), of 4-D m-branes colliding in 5-D bulk hyperspace or whatever. More so even than God doing the latter. Which at least would require one order of infinity less. Still too many of course.

Assuming an infinite universe AND an infinite multiverse side by side - whatever the multiverse originates from is necessarily more complex than whatever the universe originates from.

You are seriously failing at this "ceteris paribus" thing...