Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:It is not setteled. Do you want me to take a position before all the facts are in?
How many times must I repeat myself? Do you actually read my posts or just skim over them?

What the fuck do you mean all the facts are not yet in? What further facts are required to settle this question? Do you understand the significance of this question to the logical underpinning of your ludicrous Goldilocks argument? You are assuming that which you are trying to prove, namely that the universe has an origin external to itself.

Good grief! You do get emotional! So you are saying that the issue has been resolved???
I am assuming that you were referring to the math being invented question.

Actually, thanks for the goldilocks metaphor.
Yes, it is not a miricle that Goldilocks found the bowl at the perfect temperature for her. Similarly, it is not a miracle that we inhabit one of the tiny minority of universes suited for life.
Thanks!
However, it would be unlikely that the temperature was perfect for Goldilocks if there was only one bowl.

Can't you see the logical flaw in your Goldilocks argument? You ask why was the universe created according to this particular suite of laws and constants rather than some other. What evidence do you offer that the universe was created? If the universe has always existed your question is meaningless and if it was created the answer to your question is unknowable. In the latter case there is no valid reason to prefer the multiverse hypothesis over the god hypothesis since no evidence is available for either, even in principle.

I agree! As I have stated many many times before. It is impossible to tell with certainty what option is true. (God or Multiverse). All I am saying is that the multiverse is the only rational explanation that does not require God.
Either there is a multiverse or there is a God.

No, I am saying that there is no reason our universe has constants perfectly suited for life. Each universe randomly has constants, most are unfit for life.
The constants are generated randomly. By definition that means there is no cause for the the particular form they take.
Defintions are not explanations in the context of our debate. If I ask," why do you have $5?" It is not an explanation that it is because you have money in your pocket".

raw_thought wrote:The constants are generated randomly

Completely wrong. The constants in physics are calculated from observation. This is why they change all the time as the models are refined.

As I said in the multiverse thread. There is no explanation for the fire in the equations (Hawking quote) because that would involve an infinite regress.

raw_thought wrote:Either there is a multiverse or there is a God.

Either there is a multiverse or there is a god IF the universe had a beginning. I agree.

Now all you need to do is prove that the universe had a beginning. Good Luck.

Theory of everything!)
The creation of the multiverse has no explanation because before creation there were no laws of physics. Everything was allowed.
The multiverse then explains how life is possible in our universe!

In response to your last post,
An infinite regress of causes does not explain why our universe's constants are so suitable for life.
Suppose one said that the earth rests on an elephant and that elephant on an elephant.... That does not explain why they are elephants and not lets say rocks.
PS I am not proposing an elephantcentric universe. I hope you see that I am speaking metaphorically.

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:The constants are generated randomly

Completely wrong. The constants in physics are calculated from observation. This is why they change all the time as the models are refined.

You are confusing ontology with epistemology. Pluto existed before anyone knew that Pluto existed.
The constants exist even if no one knows what they are.
Are you a fan of Berkeley? An observer created reality. To be is to be perceived?

Reminds me of a trick question I ask my class.
What was the highest mountain before Everest was discovered?
Mt. Everest!

raw_thought wrote:In response to your last post,
An infinite regress of causes does not explain why our universe's constants are so suitable for life.
Suppose one said that the earth rests on an elephant and that elephant on an elephant.... That does not explain why they are elephants and not lets say rocks.
PS I am not proposing an elephantcentric universe. I hope you see that I am speaking metaphorically.

Interestingly, modern physics has discovered how something can come from nothing. Particles emerge from nothing and exist for extremely short time period.
0=1-1
An anti Particle and a Particle can rationally come from nothing!
As strange as it sounds the study of nothing is an exciting new branch of physics!

raw_thought wrote:Are you a fan of Berkeley? An observer created reality. To be is to be perceived?

Obviously I don't accept this as literally true because I've claimed all along that QM is only a metaphor for reality and not a physical model for it. Collapsing a wave function clearly cannot have a causal effect on something which has already occurred in the past but by observing an event we do give it a precise definition on our consciousness. We don't make its reality but we do define its form.

raw_thought wrote:The constants exist even if no one knows what they are.

Nonsense. The constants are a property of the model, not of the universe. The cosmological constant can be used to prove that the universe is expanding as well as why it isn't. The exact same constant with the exact same value can be used to prove either proposition.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING".....Albert Einstein

raw_thought wrote:Interestingly, modern physics has discovered how something can come from nothing.

This is a philosophy forum and thus this statement deserves no response. Neither does any argument about first causes.