Philosophy Explorer wrote:I only said that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis.
I got that. This is indeed what you said. Now I'll remind you that this is a philosophy forum and ask you to explain such a preposterous claim. How the fuck do you propose to establish the existence of something external to the universe when one of the a priori assumptions of physics is that the universe has no outside. ( Which naturally inclines one to wonder what the fuck the universe is supposed to be expanding into but that's a different stupid story from this one).
Leo is on a rant again. The insults and curse words will starr flowing again.
First of all,I never said that there is an explanation for the multiverse. There is no explanation outside the multiverse. That would involve an infinte regress. Since there is no explanation (or laws of physics as you put it) there are no constraints.Everything happens!
Lets provisionally assume your silly theory that our universe created its constants to create life by self regulating. In other words, the universe changed its constants (size of electrons,planks constant,speed of light etx) until life was possible. All you have done is taken God out of an objective place and put him in the universe. Pantheism is still theism.
raw_thought wrote:Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.
However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. On the grounds of Occam economy this explanation must be preferred over one which cannot be verified, even in principle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is a logical fallacy which no grown-up logician should be guilty of.
By the way if you're relying on Scott Mayers as your consultant logician I suggest you pay due heed to his understanding of the Monty Hall puzzle.
Are you serious?????
So if I see a human (an incredibly sophisticated machine) you would say that there is no need for an explanation for the complexity (either God or Evolution) because it is obvious that that amount of complexity exists??????
You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Now you're getting into an area that is the concern of the scientists.
No it's not. Science has no statement to make on metaphysical questions.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: My concern is whether they can test it and scientists are saying they can.
Which scientists are making this claim? I asked before but you gave no answer.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: I guess it'll mean a revolution in cosmology if it's proven that there is a multiverse.
It'll mean a revolution in logic by denying its validity.
raw_thought wrote:You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????
You're a fucking fraud. How dare you criticise my words without reading them.
I can see you are on one of your childish rants again.
You do have problems with analogies,so I will explain.
You claimed that the constants are perfect for life because they are perfect for life.
Similarly, if you followed that "reasoning" the incredible complexity of the human machine requires no explanation because it is obvious (100% probable ) that it is complex.
I mean this with respect. There are many gifted people with asbergers.Wittgenstein for example. Highly intelligent but cannot understand metaphors or analogies. Do you have asbergers. Also your frequent outbursts are a symptom.
Another symptom is a concentration on semantics. The literal definitions of words, even when that interferes with the substance of the argument. I remember when you called me an idiot because you said that I stupidly said "natural selection designed..." I replied that biologists do that all the time. For example they say that giraffes evolved long necks to get to higher leaves. They use that terminology as short hand and all the other biologists understand that. To state the obvious (that they do not mean that natural selection used a blue print) is cumbersome.
Last edited by raw_thought on Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
raw_thought wrote:Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.
However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. e.
I realize that you are VERY literal. I confess that you did not say " the universe has constants suited for life because the universe has constants suitable for life"
However, that is implied and is the meaning of what you said. You offered the above response as an explanation as to why the constants are so perfect for life.
For the very last time. The constants of physics are entirely derived from observation because the models of physics are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe. Therefore it is completely unsurprising that the observer duly goes ahead and observes what the models have predicted. It couldn't be otherwise. Your argument is tautologous.
raw_thought wrote:You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????
Even if he had said that, which he did not, how much more ridiculous is the claim that consciousness came about in the universe before anything else? If the emergence of complexity from the position of chaotic simplicity is difficult to understand; then how much more so is a universe that begins with a thing greater than the universe designs and creates it?
Evolution is a 'principle' only in the minds of people. The events that lead to evolution are simply how things are. There is no principle or law involved, just what is that case. We can only describe the universe, there is nothing to explain.
Obvious Leo wrote:For the very last time. The constants of physics are entirely derived from observation because the models of physics are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe. Therefore it is completely unsurprising that the observer duly goes ahead and observes what the models have predicted. It couldn't be otherwise. Your argument is tautologous.
Good grief! This nonsense again.
Constants describe reality. Yes, a model is not the thing it represents. However, to say that a model does not reveal reality is like saying that a photograph does not reveal reality. If someone shows me a picture of their baby, I then know what the actual baby looks like.
raw_thought wrote:I never claimed that consciousness came into the universe before anything else.
Actually, that is what Leo is implying.
If there are no laws of physics until we are aware of them, then it follows that consciousness created the universe in the form (constants etc) it takes.
raw_thought wrote:You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????
Even if he had said that, which he did not,
Suppose Joe says that everything is green.
I say, that means that I am green.
You reply, Joe never said that you are green!!!
Leo meaning was obvious. The constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life.
That implies that the human machine is complicated because it is complicated.
Wittgenstein came up with a great analogy.
Imagine a normal grid (squares). Now imagine a grid made of triangles.
It is true that both grids are human inventions (or to use Leo's word,"narratives")
However, to say that they do not help us understand reality is absurd. One can say object A is in triangle 2367 and object B is triangle B. Or one can say that object A is in square 298887 and B is in square 2105444. We then know the objective distance that seperates them. Maps represent reality!
PS: I forgot.Leo does not believe in distance!
