Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:56 am
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm The confusion is entirely yours, projected.
That's demonstrably false.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm 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.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm 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...

The multiverse self-originates from eternity. It has no origin. A single, solitary, finite universe originates in irrationality.

Not nature. Or God.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:27 am**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:56 am
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm The confusion is entirely yours, projected.
That's demonstrably false.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm 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.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 11:08 pm 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...
The multiverse self-originates from eternity.

But, who is saying or claiming that some so-called 'multiverse' is eternal, itself?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am It has no origin.

Why not? Where is the actual proof that some 'multiverse' did not begin?

It is like, just because you are pre-assuming some thing, then 'that thing' must be true.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am A single, solitary, finite universe originates in irrationality.

A single, solitary, finite multiverse originates in irrationality, just like a single, solitary, finite universe originates in irrationality, as well.

But, here you are believing in a single, solitary, multiverse. Of which, obviously, you have yet to show and prove that 'it' exists, and if you can, then you have yet to show and prove whether it began, or not.

In other words you, still, have a long, long way to go, here.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am Not nature. Or God.

Yes Nature, or God.

And, just like this sentence is not actually linked to any actual thing, so too were your two sentences not linked to any thing at all, here.

Once again, the Universe, itself, is infinite and eternal. And, this is just because it is an irrefutable Fact.

And, as always, 'I' am more than willing, ready, wanting, and waiting to be challenged and/or questioned over this by absolutely any one of you human beings.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:43 am**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am The multiverse self-originates from eternity. It has no origin.

You wan't to read that again?

"self-originates" and "from eternity".

Its origin is eternity (which is itself)

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am A single, solitary, finite universe originates in irrationality.

If a single solitary multiverse can self-originate from eternity; why can't a single solitary universe self-originate from eternity?

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:43 am
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am The multiverse self-originates from eternity. It has no origin.
You wan't to read that again?

"self-originates" and "from eternity".

Its origin is eternity (which is itself)

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 8:13 am A single, solitary, finite universe originates in irrationality.
If a single solitary multiverse can self-originate from eternity; why can't a single solitary universe self-originate from eternity?

Not if it's finite. As everything detectable about my infinitesimal universe says it is. Your universe is something other, infinite beyond mine. A meta-universe? A universe major. Where space-time vesicles like our universe minor come and go? Sounds like a multiverse doesn't it. Universes minor, finite, observable ones, originate in that. Or just originate. Ex nihilo. From forever. Nature abhors a spaceless vacuum. I don't buy nothing.

I'm glad we agree at last.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:27 am**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Not if it's finite.

How do you know the multiverse isn't finite?

It may be bigger than any finitude you've ever come across, but still Mathemaically finite.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am As everything detectable about my infinitesimal universe says it is.

OK. So it's an infinitesimal finite universe in a less infinitesimal finite multiverse.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Your universe is something other infinite beyond mine.

From a human perspective you can't actually determine whether anything is finite; or infinite.

It's all metaphysical specultation.

If I came to be at the edge, for example at the heaven of the fixed stars,
could I stretch my hand or my stick outside, or not? That I should not
stretch it out would be absurd, but if I do stretch it out, what is outside
will be either body or place --Archytas

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am A meta-universe? A universe major.

A god. A multiverse. A flying spaghetti monster. A

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Where space-time vesicles like our universe minor come and go?

Nowhere. If they are eternal. But you are finite obesrver with finite computational power.

You cannot reconstruct the complete history of a computational system (the universe) which proceeds forward in time faster then you can reconstruct backwards in time.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Sounds like a multiverse doesn't it.

Sounds like a universe extending your model/map thereof.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Universes minor, finite, observable ones, originate in that. Or just originate. Ex nihilo. From forever. Nature abhors a spaceless vacuum. I don't buy nothing.

Or it doesn't "originate" because it's eternal.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am I'm glad we agree at last.

We agree?

You don't even grasp that the fine tuning fiasco is a giant reification fallacy.

People mistake the model for reality - the map for the teritory. They infer that physical constants exist ontologically and in attempts to explain them
they infer God instead of themselves.

Fine-tuning doesn't point to God, it points back to human minds creating Mathematical models that work by adjusting parameters until they match observations.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:45 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:27 am
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Not if it's finite.
How do you know the multiverse isn't finite?

It may be bigger than any finitude you've ever come across, but still Mathemaically finite.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am As everything detectable about my infinitesimal universe says it is.
OK. So it's an infinitesimal finite universe in a less infinitesimal finite multiverse.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Your universe is something other infinite beyond mine.
From a human perspective you can't actually determine whether anything is finite; or infinite.

It's all metaphysical specultation.

If I came to be at the edge, for example at the heaven of the fixed stars,
could I stretch my hand or my stick outside, or not? That I should not
stretch it out would be absurd, but if I do stretch it out, what is outside
will be either body or place --Archytas

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am A meta-universe? A universe major.
A god. A multiverse. A flying spaghetti monster. A

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Where space-time vesicles like our universe minor come and go?
Nowhere. If they are eternal. But you are finite obesrver with finite computational power.

You cannot reconstruct the complete history of a computational system (the universe) which proceeds forward in time faster then you can reconstruct backwards in time.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Sounds like a multiverse doesn't it.
Sounds like a universe extending your model/map thereof.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am Universes minor, finite, observable ones, originate in that. Or just originate. Ex nihilo. From forever. Nature abhors a spaceless vacuum. I don't buy nothing.
Or it doesn't "originate" because it's eternal.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:07 am I'm glad we agree at last.
We agree?

You don't even grasp that the fine tuning fiasco is a giant reification fallacy.

People mistake the model for reality - the map for the teritory. They infer that physical constants exist ontologically and in attempts to explain them
they infer God instead of themselves.

Fine-tuning doesn't point to God, it points back to human minds creating Mathematical models that work by adjusting parameters until they match observations.

You, you, you, you, you you, you. That's you, not me by the way. Your act. Bravo! Author! Author! I do so admire your performance. You can sustain this forever can't you.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 12:52 pm**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:45 am You, you, you, you, you you, you. That's you, not me by the way. Your act. Bravo! Author! Author! I do so admire your performance. You can sustain this forever can't you.

That's generally how declaratives work, yes. Tautologies.

They are sustainable forever/unfalsifiable.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2025 1:09 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 12:52 pm
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:45 am You, you, you, you, you you, you. That's you, not me by the way. Your act. Bravo! Author! Author! I do so admire your performance. You can sustain this forever can't you.
That's generally how declaratives work, yes. Tautologies.

They are sustainable forever/unfalsifiable.

Absolutely. According to taste.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 6:19 am**

So, once again, the One and only Universe being infinite and eternal is just a Fact, which can not be refuted.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 6:19 am So, once again, the One and only Universe being infinite and eternal is just a Fact, which can not be refuted.

Infinity is the ultimate fact. A single solitary eternalist infinite, presentist eternal, greater universe is meaningless. A baseless belief. If there can be one of anything, there are infinite. Even Gods.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 1:57 pm**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 6:19 am So, once again, the One and only Universe being infinite and eternal is just a Fact, which can not be refuted.
Infinity is the ultimate fact.

Which is, ore or less, exactly what I just said and stated.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A single solitary eternalist infinite, presentist eternal, greater universe is meaningless.

Maybe to you, but this is only because of your 'current' belief, here, which you, obviously, do not want to relinquish, at all. Although you have absolutely nothing at all that could back up and support your 'current' belief, here.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A baseless belief. If there can be one of anything, there are infinite. Even Gods.

you seem to be getting distracted, and lost and confused, here, now.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 1:59 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 1:57 pm
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 6:19 am So, once again, the One and only Universe being infinite and eternal is just a Fact, which can not be refuted.
Infinity is the ultimate fact.
Which is, ore or less, exactly what I just said and stated.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A single solitary eternalist infinite, presentist eternal, greater universe is meaningless.
Maybe to you, but this is only because of your 'current' belief, here, which you, obviously, do not want to relinquish, at all. Although you have absolutely nothing at all that could back up and support your 'current' belief, here.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A baseless belief. If there can be one of anything, there are infinite. Even Gods.
you seem to be getting distracted, and lost and confused, here, now.

No . it . is . not. 'Which is, ore or less, exactly what I just said and stated.'.

Diametrically opposite.

I don't have any beliefs relevant to infinity. Only knowledge. You only have beliefs.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 2:03 pm**

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 1:59 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 1:57 pm
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm
Infinity is the ultimate fact.
Which is, ore or less, exactly what I just said and stated.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A single solitary eternalist infinite, presentist eternal, greater universe is meaningless.
Maybe to you, but this is only because of your 'current' belief, here, which you, obviously, do not want to relinquish, at all. Although you have absolutely nothing at all that could back up and support your 'current' belief, here.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 12:31 pm A baseless belief. If there can be one of anything, there are infinite. Even Gods.
you seem to be getting distracted, and lost and confused, here, now.
No . it . is . not. 'Which is, ore or less, exactly what I just said and stated.'.

Diametrically opposite.

I don't have any beliefs relevant to infinity. Only knowledge. You only have beliefs.

Here, 'we' have 'another one' who believes that I have beliefs. Yet, it has not even begun to challenge 'me'. Again, because of its 'currently' held onto belief/s, here.

Now, what is your, supposed and claimed, 'knowledge', here, exactly?

If you do not provide 'it', then, again, your claim, here, is also completely unsubstantiated.

Now, if absolutely any one would like to challenge, and/or question, me over my claim, here, then please go ahead. I know the knowledge I can and will present can not be refuted by any one.

Does any one else, here, have this confidence?

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 2:45 pm**

You are the only one making a claim now. I've never made any.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &

Re: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning &