Philosophy Now Forum

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:24 pm Didn't Hitchen's give an adequate reply?

Christopher Hitchens' 20-Minute TAKEDOWN of Christianity

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:01 pm To the question of "fine tuning."

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:03 pm the Absurdity of Justifying the Refutation of it with Infinite Multiverses.

Now obviously infinite multiverses exist, by strong uniformitarianism (SU), which cuts through all manner of nonsense; the Big Slurp being the most recent. On the list with the Big Crunch. And the 'possibility' that the attenuating finite observable universe and its ever growing unobservable (from the core) shell is part of an infinite (meta?-) greater universe. One of infinite of course. Like the infinity of un/observable universes in each. But never mind all that.

For the half dozen observed, measured fundamental constants and other phenomena to be random, a multiverse (or an infinite universe with infinite un/observable universes each with infinitely varied physics... I don't think so) is invoked separately from having to be invoked by SU anyway. Unless there have to be an infinity of multiverses (which there are anyway), each with unique physics.

What a load of tosh.

Universes self tune. The half dozen constants, c, e, G, h etc *, crystallize, freeze out, damp down and/or emerge after the first wisps, strings, quanta, points of existence interact. They are obviously the same, always. Constant. Or settle down, downstream, to that, PDQ. Because they can, in probability space. If a scintilla of existence, the ultimate being, sustains, they will emerge. The dots are always the indistinguishably same too. Absolutely minimal entities. How could they possibly be otherwise?

That feels better than all the tosh, doesn't it.

* yeah, yeah, they're not dimensionless. And?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:18 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:03 pm the Absurdity of Justifying the Refutation of it with Infinite Multiverses.

Now obviously infinite multiverses exist, by strong uniformitarianism (SU), which cuts through all manner of nonsense; the Big Slurp being the most recent. On the list with the Big Crunch. And the 'possibility' that the attenuating finite observable universe and its ever growing unobservable (from the core) shell is part of an infinite (meta?-) greater universe. One of infinite of course. Like the infinity of un/observable universes in each. But never mind all that.

For the half dozen observed, measured fundamental constants and other phenomena to be random, a multiverse (or an infinite universe with infinite un/observable universes each with infinitely varied physics... I don't think so) is invoked separately from having to be invoked by SU anyway. Unless there have to be an infinity of multiverses (which there are anyway), each with unique physics.

What a load of tosh.

Universes self tune. The half dozen constants, c, e, G, h etc *, crystallize, freeze out, damp down and/or emerge after the first wisps, strings, quanta, points of existence interact. They are obviously the same, always. Constant. Or settle down, downstream, to that, PDQ. Because they can, in probability space. If a scintilla of existence, the ultimate being, sustains, they will emerge. The dots are always the indistinguishably same too. Absolutely minimal entities. How could they possibly be otherwise?

That feels better than all the tosh, doesn't it.

* yeah, yeah, they're not dimensionless. And?

Actually, there's a much more straightforward way to refute the fine tuning argument.

The FTA contains an unstated assumption that this universe had to have turned out to be what it is. It's a circular argument.

And if it didn't turn out the way it did? Then this universe would be different from what it is; or wouldn't exist at all. So what? From what I can tell, the argument primarily holds sway with the self-centered who cannot fathom a universe which does not contain themselves.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:09 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:18 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:03 pm the Absurdity of Justifying the Refutation of it with Infinite Multiverses.

Now obviously infinite multiverses exist, by strong uniformitarianism (SU), which cuts through all manner of nonsense; the Big Slurp being the most recent. On the list with the Big Crunch. And the 'possibility' that the attenuating finite observable universe and its ever growing unobservable (from the core) shell is part of an infinite (meta?-) greater universe. One of infinite of course. Like the infinity of un/observable universes in each. But never mind all that.

For the half dozen observed, measured fundamental constants and other phenomena to be random, a multiverse (or an infinite universe with infinite un/observable universes each with infinitely varied physics... I don't think so) is invoked separately from having to be invoked by SU anyway. Unless there have to be an infinity of multiverses (which there are anyway), each with unique physics.

What a load of tosh.

Universes self tune. The half dozen constants, c, e, G, h etc *, crystallize, freeze out, damp down and/or emerge after the first wisps, strings, quanta, points of existence interact. They are obviously the same, always. Constant. Or settle down, downstream, to that, PDQ. Because they can, in probability space. If a scintilla of existence, the ultimate being, sustains, they will emerge. The dots are always the indistinguishably same too. Absolutely minimal entities. How could they possibly be otherwise?

That feels better than all the tosh, doesn't it.

* yeah, yeah, they're not dimensionless. And?

Actually, there's a much more straightforward way to refute the fine tuning argument.

The FTA contains an unstated assumption that this universe had to have turned out to be what it is. It's a circular argument.

And if it didn't turn out the way it did? Then this universe would be different from what it is; or wouldn't exist at all. So what? From what I can tell, the argument primarily holds sway with the self-centered who cannot fathom a universe which does not contain themselves.

Hi ThinkOfOne,

I deconstruct that to mean the same as an infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), being used to explain the illusion of fine tuning. Whereas we're just infinitely ignorant of (the laws of) nature. We have have to invoke hypothetical dark matter WIMPS, and even more hypothetical dark energy anti-gravity just to try and explain what we're seeing. Why the values of c, e, G, h; the dimensionless ratio of lambda the cosmological constant and omega the density parameter etc, etc. are what they are is completely hidden from us. But they're not random.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:17 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:09 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:18 am

Actually, there's a much more straightforward way to refute the fine tuning argument.

The FTA contains an unstated assumption that this universe had to have turned out to be what it is. It's a circular argument.

And if it didn't turn out the way it did? Then this universe would be different from what it is; or wouldn't exist at all. So what? From what I can tell, the argument primarily holds sway with the self-centered who cannot fathom a universe which does not contain themselves.

Hi ThinkOfOne,

I deconstruct that to mean the same as an infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), being used to explain the illusion of fine tuning. Whereas we're just infinitely ignorant of (the laws of) nature. We have have to invoke hypothetical dark matter WIMPS, and even more hypothetical dark energy anti-gravity just to try and explain what we're seeing. Why the values of c, e, G, h; the dimensionless ratio of lambda the cosmological constant and omega the density parameter etc, etc. are what they are is completely hidden from us. But they're not random.

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.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:32 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:17 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:09 am

Hi ThinkOfOne,

I deconstruct that to mean the same as an infinite multiverse (of infinite of course), being used to explain the illusion of fine tuning. Whereas we're just infinitely ignorant of (the laws of) nature. We have have to invoke hypothetical dark matter WIMPS, and even more hypothetical dark energy anti-gravity just to try and explain what we're seeing. Why the values of c, e, G, h; the dimensionless ratio of lambda the cosmological constant and omega the density parameter etc, etc. are what they are is completely hidden from us. But they're not random.

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.