Re: Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned of the Universe?

[R. Dean]

>
There is little doubt that the fundamental cosmological
constants of our universe exist and most scientist
acknowledge this resent observation: first advanced
by theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter at a scientific
symposium in Poland in 1974.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0

There numerous constants with values so precise that
if any single one was off by a very small percentage,
the universe and life as we know it, could not exist.
The fine tuned universe does not address how these very
precise numerical values came to be, only that they are
real and about two dozen have been measured and their
values known.

>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BljrAME1LLw
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0
>
Most scientist see these values as accidental, but many
non-scientist see this as evidence of design; but
design calls for a designer, which science has no room
for. So, many scientist turn the multiverse hypothesis
which, states that our universe is only one in a kind of
foam of billions and billions even infinite numbers of
universes, each with it's own set cosmological constants.
Then it's just a matter of mathematics, because we happen
to live in one of the few universes able to support life.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PXIYmcdKoY
>
There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
in the expansion of the universe.
Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.

[R. Dean]

[Steady Eddie]

Yes, the multiverse "theory" is right up there with the "brain in a vat" hypothesis.

[Peter Nyikos]

On the other hand, the only plausible alternative, a supernatural
creator (and/or designer) of the universe, only brings up the question of
how such an incredibly powerful entity could possibly have come to exist.

One answer: in another universe of the multiverse that has been around
for a length of time that makes our 13 billion years seem like less
than a nanosecond, which continually renews itself and has much
richer potential for origin and evolution of life than ours.

This has the merit of staying strictly within science, and I give it
up to a 10% probability of being true.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:45:55 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

And now you claim to understand cosmological theories,
including the existing evidence? Somehow I doubt that...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John Harshman]

On 11/17/16 8:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> One answer: in another universe of the multiverse that has been around
> for a length of time that makes our 13 billion years seem like less
> than a nanosecond, which continually renews itself and has much
> richer potential for origin and evolution of life than ours.
>
> This has the merit of staying strictly within science, and I give it
> up to a 10% probability of being true.

The phrase "up to" seriously vitiates your probability estimate. But I
would still like to know how you arrived at it.

[jillery]

It's comments like the above which justifies the label of
"Creationist". Of course there are other plausible alternatives
besides either multiverse or supernatural creator; BBT is not the same
as multiverse. And of course, supernatural creator doesn't explain
anything, so that doesn't even qualify as plausible, except to
Creationists.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[J. J. Lodder]

R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip, and at the question directly]

Q: Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned of the Universe?
[sic]

A1: No the universe is as it is.
Whether or not it is fine-tuned is unknown.

A2: The multiverse does a way with a god of the gaps.
Or if you prefer, it presents an alternative
to show that no god of the gaps is necessary,

Jan

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1mwwzl3.1as1is4124csx9N%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...

Now that's funny!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:14:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Please explain the humor.

[J. J. Lodder]

Please share,

Jan

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1mwxhaf.1qok4ddjq46sN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...

You don't qualify, but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[J. J. Lodder]

Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1mwxhaf.1qok4dd

Yes, and so invoking the argument from design from supposed fine-tuning
is a god of the gaps argument,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 23:27:59 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

....and a multiverse, in which *all* possible scenarios play
out (yes, I know that's only one version), makes "god of the
gaps" irrelevant.

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, equally irrelevant,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Especially so sice generations of philosophers of science
have tried in vain to come up with a way to estimate
the probabilities of theories being right.

Once you get past methodology,
like in 95% confidence limits
there is nothing of the kind.

And for Peter: How would you have estimated
the probability of Newtonion mechanics and gravity
being right, had you lived in 1900?

Jan

[Steady Eddie]

Well, do YOU?

Somehow I doubt that...

Somehow I don't care...

[jillery]

Since you asked, no, Casanova did not claim to understand cosmological
theories. More to the point, whether he did or did not make that
claim, whether he does or does not understand them, that has nothing
whatever to do with your implicit claim that *you* understand
cosmological theories.

You're welcome.

> Somehow I doubt that...
>
>Somehow I don't care...

And how 'bout them Mets.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:10:36 -0800 (PST), the following

Whyever do you think it matters what *I* know? I didn't
ridicule them based on ignorance; that was you. Do you
imagine that ignorance lends authority?

> Somehow I doubt that...

Wise of you to do so, but my knowledge is irrelevant to your
statement.

>Somehow I don't care...

Somehow that fails to distress me.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 11/17/16 8:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > > One answer: in another universe of the multiverse that has been around
> > > for a length of time that makes our 13 billion years seem like less
> > > than a nanosecond, which continually renews itself and has much
> > > richer potential for origin and evolution of life than ours.
> > >
> > > This has the merit of staying strictly within science, and I give it
> > > up to a 10% probability of being true.
> >
> > The phrase "up to" seriously vitiates your probability estimate. But I
> > would still like to know how you arrived at it.
>
> Especially so sice generations of philosophers of science
> have tried in vain to come up with a way to estimate
> the probabilities of theories being right.
>
> Once you get past methodology,
> like in 95% confidence limits
> there is nothing of the kind.

Mine is a "confidence level" in the everyday sense of the
word: it measures my own confidence about it being the truth.

The following exchange on another thread, between Mark Isaak
and myself, is all about this informal sort of confidence level:

_______________________ excerpt _______________________

On 11/14/16 12:27 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:55:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/12/16 3:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 11:00:01 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> [....]
>>>>
>>>> If you think that something similar to 1930s Germany cannot happen in
>>>> present USA, you are a fool. The fact that it happened in Germany is
>>>> alone enough to show that it is possible. We can argue over how
>>>> *likely* it is, but any significant likelihood at all is too much, and
>>>> denying the possibility only increases its likelihood.
>
> The fact that you brought such a scare prospect up in the first place
> suggests to me that you think there is at least a 10% probability
> of it happening. If I am wrong, please provide your own estimate.
> I put it at .00001% or less.

Given that Trump just nominated a flaming overt racist to his cabinet, I
would say a 30% chance of large-scale race- and/or religion-based
roundups, on the scale of the Japanese WWII internment. Wait until one
of Trump's programs fails for some reason, and he will use minorities as
the scapegoat.

There is at least a 99% chance that hate crimes against people of Latino
and Arab ethnicity will increase further.

> On the other hand, I think Jonathan's prediction that Trump will
> return to his Democrat roots has at least a 10% probability of
> coming true. He's already deplored violence by his supporters
> in an hour long interview.

As I remarked to Ray, I find it interesting that support for Trump today
takes the form of, "He never meant what he said."

>>>> In 1930s Germany, a disaffected population elected a highly charismatic
>>>> megalomaniac who used the Big Lie technique and who capitalized on many
>>>> people's prejudice against already unpopular minorities.
>
> What would you consider to be Trump's equivalent of _Mein Kampf_?

What he has said.

>>>> You have just
>>>> seen exactly that happen in the USA, too.
>>>>
>>>> Granted, there are differences as well. Trump's insanity is not the
>>>> sort which has "racial cleansing" as an obsessive goal. On the other
>>>> hand, Trump has spoken of a totalitarian dictator as a role model,
>
> Not for being a totalitarian dictator, and "role model" sounds
> like you spinning out of control, the way you spin out of
> control against me on the subject of same-sex civil unions.
> More about THAT below.
>
>>>> and he has said that he believes he can get away with murder. I give it
>>>> three weeks at the most after he takes office before he starts having
>>>> his political opponents arrested.
>
> Looks like you are right on track towards 10% or more.
>
>>>> If you see that happen, will you
>>>> continue to support him, or will you join the brownshirts simply because
>>>> not doing so will mean admitting you were wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Believe me, I hope to god I am wrong. And in fact, I believe there is a
>>>> significant chance (>20%) that I am wrong.
>
> About what? About the three week deal? I think the chance that
> you are wrong is 99.9999%. The system of checks and balances,
> although flagrantly disregarded by Obama, is very much in place here.

=========================== end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MC290FfWR48/l8HJGmwIBQAJ
Subject: Re: OT:Trump Won
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:19:03 -0800
Message-ID: <o0g8kp$f99$1...@dont-email.me>

Turns out that Mark based his epithet "flaming overt racist" on
the fact that the person he was characterizing that way had
said (according to Mark, who gave neither a reference nor
an exact quote) that he didn't want his children going to school
with Jews.

In fairness to Mark, he seems to have calmed down in the past week
and may give a totally different set of estimates if asked today.

> And for Peter: How would you have estimated
> the probability of Newtonion mechanics and gravity
> being right, had you lived in 1900?

Based on the knowledge then available to an informed person,
I would have probably given an estimate well below 90%, inasmuch
as the Michelson-Morley experiment had shaken the foundations
on which Newtonian physics was based. The Fitzgerald-Lorenz
contraction hypothesis had already been published and it did
not bode all that well for Newtonian physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

What should my estimate be that you will do justice to the following I
posted before your weekend escape AND doing my stance you evaded justice?
My estimate is very low probability:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AIvuws_ZETA/geyXY9uoBQAJ

-------------------------
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).

Glenn demanded I get the fuck out of his country. I guess because the
American people have spoken and he volunteered as their local spokesperson?


If you noticed or cared to thoughtfully reflect as you never do you would
have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with. Recall
this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[quote]
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[/end quote]

[snip boring stuff where Peter goes on and on about Mark]

> Mark didn't actually state why he was so paranoid about *me* rather
> than about some other person posting here, e.g. Glenn, about whom
> Hemidactylus was paranoid (as shown in the OP). The explanation will
> be revealed in the next post I do to this thread. [Or maybe someone
> will beat me to it.]

If I put myself toward the end of the list of undesirables then just how
paranoid am I. I was emphasizing with other Others with higher priority
such as Mexicans and Muslims. Since when is concern for others paranoia?
Shouldn't I be afraid the Jihadists are out to get me instead? If I thought

that "the Muslims" were itching to take over and make me a dhimmi instead
of my being concerned with unjustified profiling would that make me
paranoid too? Or is that acceptable?

I guess so:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html



And can you remember what you may have done to me to warrant my: "Hold his
feet to the fire and make it fucking burn! "? That was a while back and I
have a hard time remembering what had me irked enough with you to say such
a thing. You are so much better at recalling context and details from years

ago so maybe you could figure it out for us. Thanks in advance.
-----------------------

You are an evasive self-serving twit who owes me an apology. Put up or shut
up! Don't go stroking your Trumpian ego without dealing with a previous
mess you made first twit.

[Steady Eddie]

How do YOU know I'm ignorant of the multiverse theory?
I only made one comment so far.

[Peter Nyikos]

Since you use a word that seemed totally alien to you until this
week, "justice," and since you've jeered me in the past because
of my never-ending search for justice in talk.origins, I have
to wait until you show some sign that justice actually means
something to you.

> you would
> have seen I placed myself amongst the last of those to suffer truncheoning
> and deportation well after other despised people are dealt with.

Below, you quoted from a direct reply to eridanus [snipped] on a thread
I began. Lots of things are happening on that thread, but tomorrow
you will see a paraphrasal of your "they came for me" and other goodies.

However, the following post that I did today (among many I've done
to that thread) illustrates why I am skeptical about your
new-found concern for what you call "justice":

________________________ repost ______________________________
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:55:02 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:35 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> >>> On 11/18/16 11:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >>>>> On 11/17/16 12:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 11:35:02 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark Isaak transferred some of his paranoia from Trump to me,
> >>>>>> just as Hemidactylus transferred some of it from Trump to Glenn
> >>>>>> (as you saw in the OP of this thread).
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> First, a recap of Mark's Trump-based paranoia:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First, a note about terminology. Paranoia is a delusion, which means
> >>>>> the person suffering it has no rational grounds for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is a specific kind of delusion.
> >>>>
> >>>>> When someone
> >>>>> tells you that they are out to get you, it is therefore *not* paranoia
> >>>>> to believe someone is out to get you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since I have never told you I am out to get you, or even hinted
> >>>> at having any desire that you suffer, how do you account for
> >>>> you playing the Nazi card ("Gestapo") against me?
> >>>
> >>> The world includes more people than just you, Peter.
> >>>
> >>> And since you snipped the main issue of my post, there is no point in
> >>> replying to the rest of yours.
> >>>
> >> Interesting thing I learned is Peter and Jillery have a consensus. I am not
> >> a good person.
> >
> >
> > Posting lies about me doesn't necessarily make you not a good person.
> > You have lots of company in T.O.
>
> You're doing this petulant whining on a thread intended as a hit piece
> against me?

Here we see just how terminally self-centered you are: no mention
of Mark, who was on the hot seat in three of my first four posts to this
thread, and who was on the hot seat in the text above, except in the
oldest paragraph of all, where you and he got equal billing.

Speaking of those three posts, NO ONE has dealt with the contents
of two of them. Not coincidentally, the only one of the three
that has received attention is the only one where paranoia involving
me is dealt with. This is consistent with a frequent battle
cry against me, most often voiced by someone who is absent from
this thread,

It's all about you, isn't it?

Now we see who this battle cry should really be leveled at:
you, Hemidactylus.


> Priceless. And saying something was driving you crazy was not
> an intentional slight nor "lie". Your petty whiney crap turns this aside
> into a deliberate injustice against me.

"deliberate injustice", eh? For someone who keeps taking refuge in flippancy
when he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, you sure know how to
talk out of the other side of your mouth when you think you might still
be able to get the upper hand.


> My minor mistake was not deliberate
> however you care to mischaracterize it for your silly ass debating points
> you crave to score.


The irony is priceless.

Peter Nyikos
================== end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AIvuws_ZETA/g2asrnHRBgAJ
Subject: Re: Paranoia Like I Have Never Seen Here in Talk.Origins Before
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3c9d9029-ffb4-4a6e...@googlegroups.com>

In your reply to the above post, you deleted almost everything
and went into a philosophical song and dance that had nothing
to do with anything that ever transpired between us. Methinks
this behavior shows how little real justice means to you.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I've never seen anyone besides you and Ron Okimoto use the word
"creationist" in talk.origins to mean not "OEC or YEC," but
simply someone who believes in a creator.

Now it seems that you are going even further, and saying that
anyone who assigns a positive probability, no matter how low, to the
existence of a creator, is a creationist.

Do you happen to know whether Ron O does this too?

> Of course there are other plausible alternatives
> besides either multiverse or supernatural creator; BBT is not the same
> as multiverse.

The Big Bang Theory is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is
a multiverse. If you don't know this, your understanding of the
varied and rich multiverse theories might not be any better than
<gasp!> that of Steady Eddie.

> And of course, supernatural creator doesn't explain
> anything, so that doesn't even qualify as plausible, except to
> Creationists.

You seem convinced that you KNOW there is no life after death,
otherwise I don't see how you can say "supernatural creator doesn't
explain anything." Traditional Christianity and Islam both base
their belief in a life after death on the existence of a creator
that promised it to some and perhaps all humans.

I'm of neither opinion. I think there is at least a 20% chance that oblivion
when we die is too good to be true -- it's the second best thing
besides a heaven where the worst "day" is better than all but a
handful of the happiest days I have ever experienced.

Included in that 20% is:

(1) the terrifying vision Mark Twain thrust
on unsuspecting readers at the end of _The Mysterious Stranger_

(2) the nightmare world of Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth,
and I Must Scream,"

and, somewhat less terrible but still
a lot worse than oblivion:

(3) The scene in Homer's "Odyssey" in which Odysseus calls up
the ghosts of the dead, and the shade of Achilles tells him
he would rather be the most abject servant on earth than
king of all the dead.

Without something as immensely powerful as a creator of our
universe to guarantee a much nicer heaven, I see no reason
why life after death would be something anyone would desire.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of S. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jillery]

Perhaps, but it was a really, REALLY stupid comment, and wilfully
stupid at that. Just sayin'.

>> > Somehow I doubt that...
>>
>> Wise of you to do so, but my knowledge is irrelevant to your
>> statement.
>>
>> >Somehow I don't care...
>>
>> Somehow that fails to distress me.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:36:26 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

As usual, what you infer is incorrect. I refer specifically to your
comment, still preserved in the quoted text above, that a supernatural
creator is the only plausible alternative.

>Do you happen to know whether Ron O does this too?

Ask him.

>> Of course there are other plausible alternatives
>> besides either multiverse or supernatural creator; BBT is not the same
>> as multiverse.
>
>The Big Bang Theory is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is
>a multiverse.

That's what I just said. Your lack of reading comprehension is going
to make mincemeat out of this topic's coherence real quick.

>> And of course, supernatural creator doesn't explain
>> anything, so that doesn't even qualify as plausible, except to
>> Creationists.
>
>You seem convinced that you KNOW there is no life after death,
>otherwise I don't see how you can say "supernatural creator doesn't
>explain anything."

Of course, my "anything" is limited to the context, of the origin of
the Universe. I regret that I didn't anticipate your overly-literal
misrepresentation.

And there goes coherence. You might as well have posted about
Complexity Science.

[R. Dean]

Perhaps this entity is eternal, IE without beginning, without end.
Before Fred Hubble, generations of scientist believed the universe
was eternal, without beginning and without an end. So, if the universe
could be acceptable as eternal, what is the problem with postulating the
designer, itself as eternal. Even Einstein believed the universe was
eternal. Another problem is the problem of cause and effect, if
everything is subject to the modern scientific law of cause and effect,
what caused the designer?
But, the laws of physics break down at Planck Time 10^-43 sec. after the
big bang. So, it follows that the modern laws of science were not in
effect prior to Planck Time. Therefore what caused the Designer is
a moot issue.

[R. Dean]

Okay, is there hard, empirical evidence of multiverses
that can be observed or analyzed?
>
> Jan
>

[R. Dean]

On 11/18/2016 11:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:14:15 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1mwwzl3.1as1is4124csx9N%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...
>>> R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [snip, and at the question directly]
>>>
>>> Q: Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned of the Universe?
>>> [sic]
>>>
>>> A1: No the universe is as it is.
>>> Whether or not it is fine-tuned is unknown.
>>>
>>> A2: The multiverse does a way with a god of the gaps.
>>> Or if you prefer, it presents an alternative
>>> to show that no god of the gaps is necessary,
>
>> Now that's funny!
>
> Please explain the humor.
>

If Alice in Wonderland, could be brought
to bear against the inference of designer,
someone with imagination would advance it
that purpose. That _is_ funny! ;>

[R. Dean]

Are you aware of the Fine Tuned Constants which according
to some proponents, the values of these constants are so
crucial that it's said they are balanced on the edge of a
knife's blade.
If any one of the 2 dozen or so constants were off by a small
fraction there could be no universe, no stars, no galaxies,
no elements no life.

[Burkhard]

How many universes have you observed to test that claim?

[J. J. Lodder]

Nope, none, zilch, nada.

Is that enough?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/17/16 8:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >
> > > > One answer: in another universe of the multiverse that has been around
> > > > for a length of time that makes our 13 billion years seem like less
> > > > than a nanosecond, which continually renews itself and has much
> > > > richer potential for origin and evolution of life than ours.
> > > >
> > > > This has the merit of staying strictly within science, and I give it
> > > > up to a 10% probability of being true.
> > >
> > > The phrase "up to" seriously vitiates your probability estimate. But I
> > > would still like to know how you arrived at it.
> >
> > Especially so sice generations of philosophers of science
> > have tried in vain to come up with a way to estimate
> > the probabilities of theories being right.
> >
> > Once you get past methodology,
> > like in 95% confidence limits
> > there is nothing of the kind.
>
> Mine is a "confidence level" in the everyday sense of the
> word: it measures my own confidence about it being the truth.

That's not 'measuring' that's just gut feeling.
You should not bring that into science,

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:12:46 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your "therefore" doesn't follow from your premises. Since you presume
a Designer, the cause of said Designer remains very much relevant to
your line of reasoning. OTOH since you also recognize our ignorance
of what happened beyond Planck time, you have no basis to presume a
Designer. You can't logically have it both ways.

That the laws of physics *as we understand them* break down at Planck
time means that *it can't be known* what happened before then using
those laws. That ignorance doesn't justify you sneaking in your
preferred assumption like you did above.

Multiverse, Inflation, and Designer are all hypotheses based on
unprovable assumptions, a necessary limitation they all share. A
difference is the Designer hypothesis provides no constraints on what
follows from it; an unseen, unknown, undefined Designer could have
done anything, and so explains nothing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:10:13 -0800 (PST), the following

Nearly every comment you've made here regarding any
scientific subject has exposed your ignorance of that
subject. So why would I believe your knowledge of cosmology
would be an exception?

And the fact that you used the term *the* multiverse theory
lends support to that.

[Steady Eddie]

Yes, and that's why some Darwinian creative writer dreamed up the idea that there are so many universes
that one of them had to be just-so for life out of pure dumb luck.

Following you so far...

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:18:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

That's the claim. And it tends to support, rather than
refute, some multiverse theories, at least logically.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:15:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

Yes. See...

https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/0713990619/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

....for a start.

[Robert Camp]

Good point. Schrödinger, Susskind, Guth, Hawking; those "Darwinian
creative writers" obviously had no clue what they were talking about.

How unsurprising that you are as ignorant of cosmology as you are of
biology.

[R. Dean]

It isn't a question of multiverses, but a matter of the number
of cosmological constants which have to the right values for a
universe to form. If only one constant, it could be accidental
the result of some random effect, but after the first 6 constants
with all of which are fine tuned, then random or accidental
exacting values become questionable as accidental or random.
If in playing poker, one player draws a royal flush 6 times in a
row, it's mathematically possible, but you would suspect some
"intelligent design" at work. Maybe you won't know how he did it
but I don't believe you would ever choose to get in another poker
game with him.

[R. Dean]

What it comes down to is this. Is the law of cause and effect part
of the modern physics? And does the modern physical laws extend
back in time to before Planck Time?

> Since you presume > a Designer, the cause of said Designer remains
very much relevant to
> your line of reasoning. OTOH since you also recognize our ignorance
> of what happened beyond Planck time, you have no basis to presume a
> Designer. You can't logically have it both ways.
>

I think you missed the point of my argument: you cannot use the law of
cause and effect as applying to the question what caused the Designer;
because if there is a creator, it must have existed before Planck Time.

>
> That the laws of physics *as we understand them* break down at Planck
> time means that *it can't be known* what happened before then using
> those laws. That ignorance doesn't justify you sneaking in your
> preferred assumption like you did above.
>

It wasn't about that. It was about trying to use the modern law of cause
and effect as a weapon against the existence of a designer.

>
> Multiverse, Inflation, and Designer are all hypotheses based on
> unprovable assumptions, a necessary limitation they all share. A
> difference is the Designer hypothesis provides no constraints on what
> follows from it; an unseen, unknown, undefined Designer could have
> done anything, and so explains nothing.
>

There are still several cosmological constants to explain such as why
the speed of light, why the strength of gravity, why the weak and the
strong constants have the values they do. Not to mention the two dozen
other fundamental constants that are said to balance on a knife blade'
edge. Without the multiverse, they remain unanswered which may be
preferable to many people.

[Burkhard]

That also quantifies over possible universes, you just don't realize it.
It has the form: "No possible universe could form where X", which is
equivalent to "all possible universes have not X" - hence a
quantification over all possible universes.

The fine tuning argument presupposes possible universes just as much as
the multiverse theory does.

Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.

But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
different, they would be different.

[R. Dean]

Did you read what I scribbled below?
>
If you were to take just one constant say the speed of light
would changing it affect to other constants?

Since E-Mc2 is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.

I don't know, but I suspect it would. IE we would not be here.

[Steady Eddie]

Why, do you think those names should scare me away?
That's called the fallacy of authority, and has nothing to do with how anyone in their right mind would
have the unmitigated gall to expect people to believe that there are gazillions of universes besides this
one, without some pretty solid evidence.
So, bring it on, Robert. Tell me if you know offhand:
Who first suggested the multiverse "theory"?
What were his/her grounds for it?

(snip drivel)

[Steady Eddie]

The fine tuning argument strongly implies an intelligent designer, as well.
Why would you consider a multiverse theory over ID, as a logical starting point?

> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>
> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
> different, they would be different.
>
> If only one constant, it could be accidental

That's right.
And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.

But you don't have to presuppose an undesigned universe. Don't you think it much more logical to first
investigate whether there may be more evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe?

(tidying snip)

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 09:10:02 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

Oh and by the way, it's not just my opinion - I googled "multiverse theory origin" and got this:

"Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an
infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in
essence it requires the same leap of faith.

At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to everything in general to
explain something in particular is really no explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as
simply declaring, ''God made it that way!''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/a-brief-history-of-the-multiverse.html

(tidying snip)

[Burkhard]

Possibly. Look at a few other universes and find out
>
> Since E-Mc2

in our universe

is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
> mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.
>
> I don't know,

yup

>but I suspect it would.

as I said, have a look at the universes where that is the case

> IE we would not be here.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the other constants we know of from this
universe would also be different and compensate. Or there would be
different constant altogether.

However you put it, your argument is just as dependent on the ability to
talk rationally about other universes as the multiverse theory is

[Burkhard]

does it? Not to me.

> Why would you consider a multiverse theory over ID, as a logical starting point?

At this point I don't - I simply point out that the fine tuning argument
is a multiverse argument in disguise

>
>> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
>> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
>> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>>
>> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
>> different, they would be different.
>>
>> If only one constant, it could be accidental
>
> That's right.
> And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
> To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.
>
> But you don't have to presuppose an undesigned universe. Don't you think it much more logical to first
> investigate whether there may be more evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe?

Sure. If you can operationalise that concept so that it leads to
interesting new discoveries. I haven't seen anyone doing this yet though.
>
> (tidying snip)
>

[Robert Camp]

Sorry, no. It *is* just your opinion that some "Darwinian creative
writer dreamed up" multiverse theory. Your foolish comment is right
there on the page and cannot be expunged. As for the link below, that is
one physicist's opinion. There are plenty who do not share Davies'
perspective.

Regarding your previous reply, I have no desire to waste my time
educating adolescent trolls. If you want to remedy your ignorance, and
actually read for a broader understanding, you can begin with this wiki
page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) which has over 60 citations.

[J. J. Lodder]

R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> If you were to take just one constant say the speed of light
> would changing it affect to other constants?
>
> Since E-Mc2 is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
> mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.
>
> I don't know, but I suspect it would. IE we would not be here.

Is this a mistake you made yourself, or did you copy it from some
creationist who doesn't understand physics?

The speed of light IS NOT a constant of nature,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

"Aber haben Sie eine gesehen?" (Ernst Mach on atoms)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> R. Dean wrote:

[snip]

> > It isn't a question of multiverses, but a matter of the number
> > of cosmological constants which have to the right values for a
> > universe to form.
>
> That also quantifies over possible universes, you just don't realize it.
> It has the form: "No possible universe could form where X", which is
> equivalent to "all possible universes have not X" - hence a
> quantification over all possible universes.
>
> The fine tuning argument presupposes possible universes just as much as
> the multiverse theory does.
>
> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>
> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
> different, they would be different.

Can god create a universe that is less than perfect?
If he can't, being pefect, he has no choice.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:15:49 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
> >On 11/18/2016 8:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [snip, and at the question directly]
> >>
> >> Q: Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned of the Universe?
> >> [sic]
> >>
> >> A1: No the universe is as it is.
> >> Whether or not it is fine-tuned is unknown.
> >>
> >> A2: The multiverse does a way with a god of the gaps.
> >> Or if you prefer, it presents an alternative
> >> to show that no god of the gaps is necessary,
> > >
> >Okay, is there hard, empirical evidence of multiverses
> >that can be observed or analyzed?
>
> Yes. See...
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/07139
90619/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
>
> ....for a start.

You think there is 'hard, empirical evidence of multiverses'
to be found in there?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Right. To go from god of the gaps to a god
you need a belief in a god to begin with,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> Sorry, no. It *is* just your opinion that some "Darwinian creative
> writer dreamed up" multiverse theory. Your foolish comment is right
> there on the page and cannot be expunged. As for the link below, that is
> one physicist's opinion. There are plenty who do not share Davies'
> perspective.

For the record:
parallel universes were dreamt up by several SF authors independently,
and they became a stock cliché of science fiction
long before scientists took up the idea,
(starting with Everitt and DeWitt)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Make up your mind.
Do you want to keep 'our' laws of nature,
apart from twiddling some numbers in them,
or do you allow the possibility that other uiverses
may have entirely different laws of nature?

Jan

[Burkhard]

Me? I was giving him a choice - either the first, which is consistent
with his epistemology, but doesn't say anything interesting, or the
second, which he needs to even formulate the fine tuning argument, but
which commits him to multiverses in doing so.

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/22/2016 4:03 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
> To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.

What makes you think that was the "exact purpose"? Do you have any idea
at all where the idea of multiple universes comes from?

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?
What have I said that got your ire up?
Do you deny that the multiverse "theory" was inspired by the need to increase probabilistic resources, in
an effort to run away from considering an intelligent agency?

[Steady Eddie]

Not in my case. Consideration of the evidence, along with how far atheists will go to ignore the elephant
in the room, was a first step in my belief in God.

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 15:10:02 UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Such an authoritative source for your belief. LOL!

[Steady Eddie]

Above, we have SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS - aka CREATIVE WRITERS.

Why, do you have a more, um, SCIENTIFIC origin in mind?

[R. Dean]

On 11/22/2016 4:55 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> If you were to take just one constant say the speed of light
>> would changing it affect to other constants?
>>
>> Since E-Mc2 is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
>> mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.
>>
>> I don't know, but I suspect it would. IE we would not be here.
>
> Is this a mistake you made yourself, or did you copy it from some
> creationist who doesn't understand physics?
>

If it's a mistake, it's all my mistake. Light travels in space (a
vacuum) at 186,000 miles/sec this is rather constant. Einstein was under
the same impression.

>

> The speed of light IS NOT a constant of nature,
>

Do you know this: how?
>
> Jan
>
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:36:26 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:45:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:22:31 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> >On the other hand, the only plausible alternative, a supernatural
> >> >creator (and/or designer) of the universe, only brings up the question of
> >> >how such an incredibly powerful entity could possibly have come to exist.
> >> >

> >> >One answer: in another universe of the multiverse that has been around
> >> >for a length of time that makes our 13 billion years seem like less
> >> >than a nanosecond, which continually renews itself and has much
> >> >richer potential for origin and evolution of life than ours.
> >> >
> >> >This has the merit of staying strictly within science, and I give it
> >> >up to a 10% probability of being true.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's comments like the above which justifies the label of
> >> "Creationist".
> >
> >I've never seen anyone besides you and Ron Okimoto use the word
> >"creationist" in talk.origins to mean not "OEC or YEC," but
> >simply someone who believes in a creator.
> >
> >Now it seems that you are going even further, and saying that
> >anyone who assigns a positive probability, no matter how low, to the
> >existence of a creator, is a creationist.
>
>
> As usual, what you infer is incorrect.

Sorry, you misunderstood what I wrote.

> I refer specifically to your
> comment, still preserved in the quoted text above, that a supernatural
> creator is the only plausible alternative.

To a fantastically vast multiverse, to which I assign a probability well
over 99%. The "up to 10%" that I associate with a scientifically
amenable (at least in principle) creator of OUR
tiny, young [less than 15 gya old] universe is WITHIN that 99+%.

> >Do you happen to know whether Ron O does this too?
>
>
> Ask him.

I will, if he answers at least one of a pair of posts I am
doing in reply to him this evening.

>
> >> Of course there are other plausible alternatives
> >> besides either multiverse or supernatural creator; BBT is not the same
> >> as multiverse.
> >
> >The Big Bang Theory is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is
> >a multiverse.
>
>
> That's what I just said.

No, you wrote something much more simplistic. You cannot expect
me to divine your intended meaning.

> Your lack of reading comprehension is going
> to make mincemeat out of this topic's coherence real quick.

GIGO.

>
> >> And of course, supernatural creator doesn't explain
> >> anything, so that doesn't even qualify as plausible, except to
> >> Creationists.
> >
> >You seem convinced that you KNOW there is no life after death,
> >otherwise I don't see how you can say "supernatural creator doesn't
> >explain anything."
>
>
> Of course, my "anything" is limited to the context, of the origin of
> the Universe.

I thought you were just repeating a common misconception that I run
into all over the place. In any event, you cannot expect me to have
divined your intent here either.

> I regret that I didn't anticipate your overly-literal
> misrepresentation.

Apology accepted.


>
> >Traditional Christianity and Islam both base
> >their belief in a life after death on the existence of a creator
> >that promised it to some and perhaps all humans.
> >
> >I'm of neither opinion. I think there is at least a 20% chance that oblivion
> >when we die is too good to be true -- it's the second best thing
> >besides a heaven where the worst "day" is better than all but a
> >handful of the happiest days I have ever experienced.
> >
> >Included in that 20% is:
> >
> >(1) the terrifying vision Mark Twain thrust
> >on unsuspecting readers at the end of _The Mysterious Stranger_
> >
> >(2) the nightmare world of Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth,
> >and I Must Scream,"
> >
> >and, somewhat less terrible but still
> >a lot worse than oblivion:
> >
> >(3) The scene in Homer's "Odyssey" in which Odysseus calls up
> >the ghosts of the dead, and the shade of Achilles tells him
> >he would rather be the most abject servant on earth than
> >king of all the dead.
> >
> >Without something as immensely powerful as a creator of our
> >universe to guarantee a much nicer heaven, I see no reason
> >why life after death would be something anyone would desire.
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
> >Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >University of S. Carolina
> >http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
>
>
> And there goes coherence.

Looks like "coherence" is your term for "narrowly sticking to one
subject, without trying to look at broader implications of what
is talked about."

> You might as well have posted about
> Complexity Science.

You're barking up the wrong tree. The person you should really be
accusing of incoherence is Hemidactylus, the way he posts on
the thread, "Paranoia Like I Have Never Seen Here in Talk.Origins Before"

Just this weekend you had an extended tiff with him right on that
thread. There is plenty of raw material that you haven't touched yet.

Don't worry, I won't tell him that I suggested this to you.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of S. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/16 1:03 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> [...]

> The fine tuning argument strongly implies an intelligent designer, as well.

Absolutely. For example, the fact that puddles of water are finely
tuned to the depressions they sit in shows that puddles are
intelligently designed. This can be verified by the fact that most
puddles occur in potholes on roads and trails, and in animal footprints.
The potholes are intelligently made by intelligent people, and the
footprints are made by intelligent animals, which are obviously (due to
their avoidance of silly arguments) even more intelligent than people.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:40:01 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/22/16 1:03 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > [...]
> > The fine tuning argument strongly implies an intelligent designer, as well.

Eddie is overstating the case, but you obviously can't see that
it strongly implies EITHER a vast multiverse OR an intelligent designer
of our universe OR both.

These are the only three viable alternatives, but the multiverse
(alone, as opposed to both) is by far the more likely of the three
possiblities IMHO.

> Absolutely. For example, the fact that puddles of water are finely
> tuned to the depressions they sit in shows that puddles are
> intelligently designed. This can be verified by the fact that most
> puddles occur in potholes on roads and trails, and in animal footprints.
> The potholes are intelligently made by intelligent people, and the
> footprints are made by intelligent animals, which are obviously (due to
> their avoidance of silly arguments) even more intelligent than people.

Give it up, Mark. You are too incompetent at the philosophy
of science to understand what fine tuning arguments are about.
Even John Harshman, who is far better at science than you
are, is tone-deaf and color-blind when it comes to understanding them.

Yes, I know you are mercilessly lampooning fine tuning arguments,
but that doesn't say a damn thing about your understanding of them.
Your lampoon only makes sense against a primitive form of
the argument from design that is pre-Paley, pre-Hume, and pre-Ramanuja.

Peter Nyikos

[Steady Eddie]

I think it's your nap time again, Professor.

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't know whether Jan knows this. The constants that are
actually used in fine tuning arguments are "dimensionless,"
meaning they are pure numbers.

A good example is the ratio between the electromagnetic repulsion
between two protons and their gravitational attraction.
It's a fantastically large number, and it plays a crucial
role in telling us just how incredibly unlikely a universe
like ours is.

But given a multiverse with a far greater number of universes in it,
the incredibly unlikely becomes a near certainty -- somewhere.

And one of those incredibly rare places is here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:57:34 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/22/2016 2:18 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2016 9:10 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 20 November 2016 10:00:02 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:10:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 11:05:01 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:45:55 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>>>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And now you claim to understand cosmological theories,
>>>>>>> including the existing evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, do YOU?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whyever do you think it matters what *I* know? I didn't
>>>>> ridicule them based on ignorance; that was you. Do you
>>>>> imagine that ignorance lends authority?
>>>>
>>>> How do YOU know I'm ignorant of the multiverse theory?
>>>> I only made one comment so far.
>>> >
>>> Are you aware of the Fine Tuned Constants which according
>>> to some proponents, the values of these constants are so
>>> crucial that it's said they are balanced on the edge of a
>>> knife's blade.
>>> If any one of the 2 dozen or so constants were off by a small
>>> fraction there could be no universe, no stars, no galaxies,
>>> no elements no life.
>>
>> How many universes have you observed to test that claim?
> >
>It isn't a question of multiverses, but a matter of the number
>of cosmological constants which have to the right values for a
>universe to form.

IIUC that's exactly Burkhard's point, that you have no idea what
values those cosmological constants could be to form a universe. All
you know for certain are the values that work for *this* universe.
You're still special pleading your preferred presumptions.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:52:33 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>+1


It's almost certain you have no idea what Burkhard was talking about.

>> >>>> Somehow I doubt that...
>> >>>
>> >>> Wise of you to do so, but my knowledge is irrelevant to your
>> >>> statement.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Somehow I don't care...
>> >>>
>> >>> Somehow that fails to distress me.
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Bob C.
>> >>>
>> >>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> >>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> >>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>> >>>
>> >>> - Isaac Asimov
>> >>
>> >

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:23:16 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/22/2016 3:04 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote:

>>> It isn't a question of multiverses, but a matter of the number
>>> of cosmological constants which have to the right values for a
>>> universe to form.
>>

>> That also quantifies over possible universes, you just don't realize it.
>> It has the form: "No possible universe could form where X", which is
>> equivalent to "all possible universes have not X" - hence a
>> quantification over all possible universes.
>>
>> The fine tuning argument presupposes possible universes just as much as
>> the multiverse theory does.
>>

>> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
>> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
>> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>>
>> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
>> different, they would be different.
> >
>Did you read what I scribbled below?
> >

>If you were to take just one constant say the speed of light
>would changing it affect to other constants?
>
>Since E-Mc2 is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
>mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.
>
>I don't know, but I suspect it would. IE we would not be here.

That's possible. It's also possible that other combinations of values
would result in other functional universes, just not ones like this
universe. The point is, nobody knows. That's the problem with the
Fine Tuning argument; it asserts certainties based on a sample of one.

>> If only one constant, it could be accidental

>>> the result of some random effect, but after the first 6 constants
>>> with all of which are fine tuned, then random or accidental
>>> exacting values become questionable as accidental or random.
>>> If in playing poker, one player draws a royal flush 6 times in a
>>> row, it's mathematically possible, but you would suspect some
>>> "intelligent design" at work. Maybe you won't know how he did it
>>> but I don't believe you would ever choose to get in another poker
>>> game with him.
>>>>>
>>>>>>

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:03:28 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The fine tuning argument strongly implies an intelligent designer, as well.

>Why would you consider a multiverse theory over ID, as a logical starting point?

The Multiverse hypothesis derives from the Inflationary hypothesis,
which is very successful in explaining much of what is observed.

And because you so easily misrepresent what you read, I state
explicitly that the above does not mean Multiverse and Inflation are
the same thing, or that the veracity of one depends on the veracity of
the other.

OTOH ID doesn't explain anything, as all possible bservations are
consistent with it.

That's why Multiverse is a more useful hypothesis than ID. You're
welcome.

>> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
>> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
>> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>>
>> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
>> different, they would be different.
>>

>> If only one constant, it could be accidental
>

>That's right.

>And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
>To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.
>

>But you don't have to presuppose an undesigned universe. Don't you think it much more logical to first
>investigate whether there may be more evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe?
>

>(tidying snip)


And how do you propose to investigate an unseen, unknown, undefined
intelligent designer of the universe? You don't say.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:48:33 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/22/2016 7:36 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:12:46 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/17/2016 11:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>> On the other hand, the only plausible alternative, a supernatural
>>>> creator (and/or designer) of the universe, only brings up the question of
>>>> how such an incredibly powerful entity could possibly have come to exist.
>>>>

>>> Perhaps this entity is eternal, IE without beginning, without end.
>>> Before Fred Hubble, generations of scientist believed the universe
>>> was eternal, without beginning and without an end. So, if the universe
>>> could be acceptable as eternal, what is the problem with postulating the
>>> designer, itself as eternal. Even Einstein believed the universe was
>>> eternal. Another problem is the problem of cause and effect, if
>>> everything is subject to the modern scientific law of cause and effect,
>>> what caused the designer?
>>> But, the laws of physics break down at Planck Time 10^-43 sec. after the
>>> big bang. So, it follows that the modern laws of science were not in
>>> effect prior to Planck Time. Therefore what caused the Designer is
>>> a moot issue.
>>
>>
>> Your "therefore" doesn't follow from your premises.
>>
>What it comes down to is this. Is the law of cause and effect part
>of the modern physics? And does the modern physical laws extend
>back in time to before Planck Time?


No, you don't get to misrepresent what it comes down to. Regardless
of the conditions that existed before Planck Time, they necessarily
apply equally to all presumptions, not just your preferred Creator.


>> Since you presume
>> a Designer, the cause of said Designer remains very much relevant to
>> your line of reasoning. OTOH since you also recognize our ignorance
>> of what happened beyond Planck time, you have no basis to presume a
>> Designer. You can't logically have it both ways.
> >
>I think you missed the point of my argument: you cannot use the law of
>cause and effect as applying to the question what caused the Designer;
>because if there is a creator, it must have existed before Planck Time.


Since I explicitly refuted that very point, it's obvious I did not
miss the point of your argument. OTOH you admit missing the point of
my argument. You're still special pleading for your preferred
presumption, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that.


>> That the laws of physics *as we understand them* break down at Planck
>> time means that *it can't be known* what happened before then using
>> those laws. That ignorance doesn't justify you sneaking in your
>> preferred assumption like you did above.
> >
>It wasn't about that. It was about trying to use the modern law of cause
>and effect as a weapon against the existence of a designer.


That's odd, because what I read is not that, but instead you special
pleading that your unseen, unknown, undefined Designer is exempt from
cause-and-effect.


>> Multiverse, Inflation, and Designer are all hypotheses based on
>> unprovable assumptions, a necessary limitation they all share. A
>> difference is the Designer hypothesis provides no constraints on what
>> follows from it; an unseen, unknown, undefined Designer could have
>> done anything, and so explains nothing.
> >
>There are still several cosmological constants to explain such as why
>the speed of light, why the strength of gravity, why the weak and the
>strong constants have the values they do. Not to mention the two dozen
>other fundamental constants that are said to balance on a knife blade'
>edge. Without the multiverse, they remain unanswered which may be
>preferable to many people.


More correctly, the answers that are available are incomplete and
unsatisfactory. In the meantime, you still haven't said how your
unseen, unknown, undefined Designer explains any of those things you
mention above. How long should I wait for you to do so?

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:17:28 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 09:10:02 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

>> On 11/22/16 7:51 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

>> > On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 00:15:02 UTC-7, R. Dean wrote:
>> >> On 11/21/2016 9:10 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, 20 November 2016 10:00:02 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:10:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> >>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 11:05:01 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:45:55 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> >>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>>> And now you claim to understand cosmological theories,
>> >>>>>> including the existing evidence?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Well, do YOU?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Whyever do you think it matters what *I* know? I didn't
>> >>>> ridicule them based on ignorance; that was you. Do you
>> >>>> imagine that ignorance lends authority?
>> >>>
>> >>> How do YOU know I'm ignorant of the multiverse theory?
>> >>> I only made one comment so far.
>> >> >
>> >> Are you aware of the Fine Tuned Constants which according
>> >> to some proponents, the values of these constants are so
>> >> crucial that it's said they are balanced on the edge of a
>> >> knife's blade.
>> >> If any one of the 2 dozen or so constants were off by a small
>> >> fraction there could be no universe, no stars, no galaxies,
>> >> no elements no life.
>> >

>> > Yes, and that's why some Darwinian creative writer dreamed up the idea that there are so many universes
>> > that one of them had to be just-so for life out of pure dumb luck.
>>
>> Good point. Schrödinger, Susskind, Guth, Hawking; those "Darwinian
>> creative writers" obviously had no clue what they were talking about.
>>
>> How unsurprising that you are as ignorant of cosmology as you are of
>> biology.
>
>Oh and by the way, it's not just my opinion - I googled "multiverse theory origin" and got this:
>

>"Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an
>infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
>invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in
>essence it requires the same leap of faith.
>
>At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to everything in general to
>explain something in particular is really no explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as
>simply declaring, ''God made it that way!''
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/a-brief-history-of-the-multiverse.html
>
>(tidying snip)

The author of what you quoted is Paul Davies, who also wrote:

************************************
We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something
outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained
God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes,
but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as
fixed, perfect relationships. I propose instead that the laws are more
like computer software: programs being run on the great cosmic
computer. They emerge with the universe at the big bang and are
inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker's mark.
**************************************

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment>

[jillery]

OTOH the Multiverse hypothesis isn't the same thing as the parallel
universes of SF. At the very least, those parallel universes interact
with ours.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:38:24 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>U MAD BRO?


How old are you exactly?

[Steven Carlip]

On 11/22/16 2:38 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

[...]

> Do you deny that the multiverse "theory" was inspired by the need to
> increase probabilistic resources, in an effort to run away from
> considering an intelligent agency?

I certainly deny it.

The two most common places a multiverse appears in physics are
in "eternal inflation" and the "string landscape." In both
cases, it was a completely unexpected outcome of a theory
that was designed to address a very different issue.

Inflationary cosmology was proposed 1980 to address several
issues in cosmology -- the fact that the Universe is nearly
flat and nearly homogeneous, and seems to have no magnetic
monopoles. Three years later, Steinhardt and Vilenkin
discovered that typical inflationary models predicted a
multiverse.

String theory was developed as an attempt to unify gravity and
elementary particle interactions. It has a long and complex
history, but the main interest in the theory began around 1983.
Roughly 20 years later, it was realized, to the great surprise
of most people working on string theory, that it seemed to
predict a multiverse. This was not only not the intention, it
was a great disappointment to many people working on the theory,
since the original hope was that it would have a unique solution
that would tell us everything about the Universe.

So, no, the idea of a multiverse was certainly not "inspired

by the need to increase probabilistic resources, in an effort

to run away from considering an intelligent agency." It was
an unexpected, and for many physicists undesired, outcome of
efforts to solve completely different problems.

Steve Carlip

[Steady Eddie]

You mean Jan was bullshitting us when she said it originated with science-fiction writers?
Darn! I should have fact-checked her!

> And because you so easily misrepresent what you read, I state
> explicitly that the above does not mean Multiverse and Inflation are
> the same thing, or that the veracity of one depends on the veracity of
> the other.
>
> OTOH ID doesn't explain anything, as all possible bservations are
> consistent with it.

Yes, because all observations are possible because of it.

> That's why Multiverse is a more useful hypothesis than ID. You're
> welcome.
>
>
> >> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
> >> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
> >> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
> >>
> >> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
> >> different, they would be different.
> >>
> >> If only one constant, it could be accidental
> >
> >That's right.
> >And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
> >To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.
> >
> >But you don't have to presuppose an undesigned universe. Don't you think it much more logical to first
> >investigate whether there may be more evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe?
> >
> >(tidying snip)
>
>
> And how do you propose to investigate an unseen, unknown, undefined
> intelligent designer of the universe? You don't say.

Start by looking for His/Her/Its communication to Mankind.
There have been some rumours, you know...

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:20:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

If so, then right here would have been a good place for you to explain
what you meant. But you didn't. Is anybody surprised?

>> I refer specifically to your
>> comment, still preserved in the quoted text above, that a supernatural
>> creator is the only plausible alternative.
>
>To a fantastically vast multiverse, to which I assign a probability well
>over 99%. The "up to 10%" that I associate with a scientifically
>amenable (at least in principle) creator of OUR
>tiny, young [less than 15 gya old] universe is WITHIN that 99+%.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>> >Do you happen to know whether Ron O does this too?
>>
>>
>> Ask him.
>
>I will, if he answers at least one of a pair of posts I am
>doing in reply to him this evening.
>
>>
>> >> Of course there are other plausible alternatives
>> >> besides either multiverse or supernatural creator; BBT is not the same
>> >> as multiverse.
>> >
>> >The Big Bang Theory is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is
>> >a multiverse.
>>
>>
>> That's what I just said.
>
>No, you wrote something much more simplistic.

Even if so, it is sufficient to make my point, and you identified no
distinction of substance, so your comment is pointless.

>You cannot expect me to divine your intended meaning.

The only thing I expect from you is for you to obliterate all
coherence from a thread by making pointless comments like the above...

>> Your lack of reading comprehension is going
>> to make mincemeat out of this topic's coherence real quick.
>
>GIGO.

...and like the above. It's what you do.

>> >> And of course, supernatural creator doesn't explain
>> >> anything, so that doesn't even qualify as plausible, except to
>> >> Creationists.
>> >
>> >You seem convinced that you KNOW there is no life after death,
>> >otherwise I don't see how you can say "supernatural creator doesn't
>> >explain anything."
>>
>>
>> Of course, my "anything" is limited to the context, of the origin of
>> the Universe.
>
>I thought you were just repeating a common misconception that I run
>into all over the place. In any event, you cannot expect me to have
>divined your intent here either.

IBID

>> I regret that I didn't anticipate your overly-literal
>> misrepresentation.
>
>Apology accepted.

It's not an apology.

Looks like "coherence" is a term you and your strange bedfellows have
no idea what it means.

>> You might as well have posted about
>> Complexity Science.
>
>You're barking up the wrong tree. The person you should really be
>accusing of incoherence is Hemidactylus, the way he posts on
>the thread, "Paranoia Like I Have Never Seen Here in Talk.Origins Before"

And here's another examples where you ejaculate your repetitive
irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter. It's what you do.

>Just this weekend you had an extended tiff with him right on that
>thread. There is plenty of raw material that you haven't touched yet.
>
>Don't worry, I won't tell him that I suggested this to you.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>Univ. of S. Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jillery]

Even if so, it's more than adequate for an argument that's
pre-Steadly.

[jillery]

Of course, that's one of the unproved assumptions of a fine-tuning
argument.

>But given a multiverse with a far greater number of universes in it,
>the incredibly unlikely becomes a near certainty -- somewhere.
>
>And one of those incredibly rare places is here.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>U. of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Steven Carlip]

On 11/21/16 11:18 PM, R. Dean wrote:

[...]

> Are you aware of the Fine Tuned Constants which according
> to some proponents, the values of these constants are so
> crucial that it's said they are balanced on the edge of a
> knife's blade. If any one of the 2 dozen or so constants
> were off by a small fraction there could be no universe,
> no stars, no galaxies, no elements no life.

I'm aware that "some proponents" claim this. I'm also
aware that their arguments are pretty weak.

First of all, we don't know that there are really
"2 dozen or so" different fundamental constants. In
their present form, our basic theories contain about
that number, but we don't know how many of them are
really independent. It could be that there are only
two or three constants (or one) that determine the
values of the others. There are some hints in this
direction, but they're very far from conclusive; we
just don't know.

Second, we don't know what determines the values of
these constants, so we don't know whether their values
in our universe are likely or unlikely. Without some
idea of a mechanism or a probability distribution, it
simply doesn't make sense to say that a constant is
"fine tuned." (If I tell you I'm rolling dice and
got a total of 12, you don't know whether that's
likely or not, because I haven't told you how many
dice. Now suppose I tell you I'm playing a game and
just got a 12, and don't even tell you what game it
is. Should you be surprised?)

Third, we don't really know what values are needed to
give "stars, galaxies, elements, or life." For example,
the argument that's usually thought of as the first
example of fine tuning was Hoyle's prediction that
the carbon nucleus must have a certain special energy
structure (a particular resonance) to allow the
nucleosynthesis of heavier elements. This is probably
the place "elements" came from on your list. But it's
been recently shown that the same result could occur
with a wide range of different values of the fundamental
constants (see Adams, arXiv:1608.04690). In an even
more dramatic example, it's been shown that even if
one of the four fundamental interactions, the weak
interaction, was completely absent, much of the
universe as we know it could still exist (see Harnik
et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0604027).

So all in all, this kind of fine tuning argument is
not very convincing.

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:38:16 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Ask him.

>Darn! I should have fact-checked her!

GIYF

>> And because you so easily misrepresent what you read, I state
>> explicitly that the above does not mean Multiverse and Inflation are
>> the same thing, or that the veracity of one depends on the veracity of
>> the other.
>>
>> OTOH ID doesn't explain anything, as all possible bservations are
>> consistent with it.
>
>Yes, because all observations are possible because of it.

Your willful stupidity is showing again. When a hypothesis makes no
distinctions, it doesn't explain anything, by definition.

>> That's why Multiverse is a more useful hypothesis than ID. You're
>> welcome.
>>
>>
>> >> Unless you make a much weaker, and rather uninteresting claim of the
>> >> form: if we take the universe that we observe, AND change just one
>> >> variable, AND keep everything else constant, it would not work.
>> >>
>> >> But that just says: things are the way they are, and if they were
>> >> different, they would be different.
>> >>
>> >> If only one constant, it could be accidental
>> >
>> >That's right.
>> >And that relates to the exact purpose for the multiverse theory:
>> >To somehow deal with the slim odds that an undesigned universe would turn out this way.
>> >
>> >But you don't have to presuppose an undesigned universe. Don't you think it much more logical to first
>> >investigate whether there may be more evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe?
>> >
>> >(tidying snip)
>>
>>
>> And how do you propose to investigate an unseen, unknown, undefined
>> intelligent designer of the universe? You don't say.
>
>Start by looking for His/Her/Its communication to Mankind.
>There have been some rumours, you know...

Are you referring to SETI? Or something like the Bible? If the
former, that an extraterrestrial intelligence exists is no evidence
that it's the Designer of the universe. If the latter, whatever
comfort you derive from it, the Bible doesn't provide what's needed to
investigate the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

[Burkhard]

yup, I though that too. But hey, I take these points where I can get
them :o)

[Steady Eddie]

And how many universes did they test the theory on so far?

[J. J. Lodder]

Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 15:10:02 UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> >
> > > Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 13:05:02 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

[snip]

> > > >> The fine tuning argument presupposes possible universes just as
> > > >> much as the multiverse theory does.
> > > >
> > > > The fine tuning argument strongly implies an intelligent designer,
> > > >as well.
> > >

> > > does it? Not to me.
> >
> > Right. To go from god of the gaps to a god
> > you need a belief in a god to begin with,
>
> Not in my case. Consideration of the evidence, along with how far atheists
> will go to ignore the elephant in the room, was a first step in my belief
> in God.

Please don't lie about it,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Indeed.
Probability arguments are empty if you cannot specify a range.
'Somewhere between zero and infinity' is not a range.
Unless you believe in Pascal's wager too.

For perspective: any theory that could give just any range
(for example that 1/alpha must lie between 10 and 10000)
would be a major breakthrough,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/22/2016 4:55 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> If you were to take just one constant say the speed of light
> >> would changing it affect to other constants?
> >>
> >> Since E-Mc2 is true, then M=c2/E is also true. Would this change the
> >> mass? If mass were altered, would it affect gravity etc,etc,etc.
> >>
> >> I don't know, but I suspect it would. IE we would not be here.
> >
> > Is this a mistake you made yourself, or did you copy it from some
> > creationist who doesn't understand physics?
> >
> If it's a mistake, it's all my mistake. Light travels in space (a
> vacuum) at 186,000 miles/sec this is rather constant. Einstein was under
> the same impression.

Indeed. It is that constant that you can completely eliminate c
from all equations of physics.
(in other words, put it equal to one)
Fine-tuning c is as silly as trying to fine-tune pi.

> > The speed of light IS NOT a constant of nature,
> >
> Do you know this: how?

Just a little understanding of physics.
It always surprises me in much of the fine-tuning talk
that most of the people doing the talking haven't.

Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:58:04 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>It's almost certain you have no idea what Burkhard was talking about.

>yup, I though that too. But hey, I take these points where I can get
>them :o)

And so you should.

[jillery]

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing again. Steve Carlip
answered your question, still preserved in the quoted text above,
relating to your claim that Multiverse hypothesis is an effort to run

away from considering an intelligent agency.

My impression is you were so anxious to draw an equivalence to
criticisms about fine tuning arguments, that you didn't take the time
to understand what you read.

[Steady Eddie]

On what evidence do you call me a liar?

[Steady Eddie]

Did I miss the part where he answers my question above:

[Glenn]

"Steven Carlip" <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:o13dg8$3an$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/22/16 2:38 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Do you deny that the multiverse "theory" was inspired by the need to
>> increase probabilistic resources, in an effort to run away from
>> considering an intelligent agency?
>
> I certainly deny it.

"At the age of 51, Everett, who believed in quantum immortality, died suddenly of a heart attack at home in his bed on the night of July 18-19, 1982. Everett's obesity, frequent chain-smoking and alcohol drinking almost certainly contributed to this, although he seemed healthy at the time. A committed atheist, he had asked that his remains be disposed of in the trash after his death."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III

"Everett ... claimed to have scientifically disproved the Christian religion."
http://www.nndb.com/people/916/000196328/

>
> The two most common places a multiverse appears in physics are
> in "eternal inflation" and the "string landscape." In both
> cases, it was a completely unexpected outcome of a theory
> that was designed to address a very different issue.

"Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator."

-Paul Davies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

>
> Inflationary cosmology was proposed 1980 to address several
> issues in cosmology -- the fact that the Universe is nearly
> flat and nearly homogeneous, and seems to have no magnetic
> monopoles. Three years later, Steinhardt and Vilenkin
> discovered that typical inflationary models predicted a
> multiverse.
>
> String theory was developed as an attempt to unify gravity and
> elementary particle interactions. It has a long and complex
> history, but the main interest in the theory began around 1983.
> Roughly 20 years later, it was realized, to the great surprise
> of most people working on string theory, that it seemed to
> predict a multiverse. This was not only not the intention, it
> was a great disappointment to many people working on the theory,
> since the original hope was that it would have a unique solution
> that would tell us everything about the Universe.
>
> So, no, the idea of a multiverse was certainly not "inspired
> by the need to increase probabilistic resources, in an effort
> to run away from considering an intelligent agency." It was
> an unexpected, and for many physicists undesired, outcome of
> efforts to solve completely different problems.

You haven't even addressed the subject, let alone supported that claim.
>
> Steve Carlip
>

[Steven Carlip]

> And how many universes did they test the theory on so far?

I see you're changing the subject. My post was a response to your
claim that "the multiverse 'theory' was inspired by the need to

increase probabilistic resources, in an effort to run away from

considering an intelligent agency."

Are you now dropping this claim? Do you accept that it's historically
wrong? If so, we can move on to the subject of testing multiverse
theories. If not, can you present one bit f actual evidence for
your claim?

Steve Carlip

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:55:50 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:15:49 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>>
>> >On 11/18/2016 8:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> R. Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> [snip, and at the question directly]
>> >>
>> >> Q: Does the Multiverse do Away With the Fine Tuned of the Universe?
>> >> [sic]
>> >>
>> >> A1: No the universe is as it is.
>> >> Whether or not it is fine-tuned is unknown.
>> >>
>> >> A2: The multiverse does a way with a god of the gaps.
>> >> Or if you prefer, it presents an alternative
>> >> to show that no god of the gaps is necessary,
>> > >
>> >Okay, is there hard, empirical evidence of multiverses
>> >that can be observed or analyzed?
>>
>> Yes. See...
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/07139
>90619/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
>>
>> ....for a start.
>
>You think there is 'hard, empirical evidence of multiverses'
>to be found in there?

Deutsch seems to think so, if by "hard, empirical evidence"
one means observed phenomena which can be best interpreted
as interaction between universes. Of course, I'm no
physicist, but his arguments seemed valid to me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:09:32 +0100, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Sorry, no. It *is* just your opinion that some "Darwinian creative
>> writer dreamed up" multiverse theory. Your foolish comment is right
>> there on the page and cannot be expunged. As for the link below, that is
>> one physicist's opinion. There are plenty who do not share Davies'
>> perspective.
>
>For the record:
>parallel universes were dreamt up by several SF authors independently,
>and they became a stock cliché of science fiction
>long before scientists took up the idea,
>(starting with Everitt and DeWitt)

Sort of like atomic bombs, and interplanetary flight?

For the record, the first SF author I know of who dealt with
parallel universes on a regular basis was H. Beam Piper, in
the early '60s. When were the first serious scientific
proposals?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:44:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 15:10:02 UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Sorry, no. It *is* just your opinion that some "Darwinian creative
>> > writer dreamed up" multiverse theory. Your foolish comment is right
>> > there on the page and cannot be expunged. As for the link below, that is
>> > one physicist's opinion. There are plenty who do not share Davies'
>> > perspective.
>>
>> For the record:
>> parallel universes were dreamt up by several SF authors independently,
>> and they became a stock cliché of science fiction
>> long before scientists took up the idea,
>> (starting with Everitt and DeWitt)

>Such an authoritative source for your belief. LOL!

If you think Jan was citing SF writers as authoritative
sources, or even that scientists used SF stories to
"springboard" multiverse theories, try reading again, this
time for comprehension.

[R. Dean]

On 11/23/2016 1:02 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:57:34 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>> On 11/22/2016 2:18 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> R. Dean wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2016 9:10 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 20 November 2016 10:00:02 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:10:36 -0800 (PST), the following

>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 11:05:01 UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:45:55 -0800 (PST), the following

>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>>>>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>

>> It isn't a question of multiverses, but a matter of the number
>> of cosmological constants which have to the right values for a
>> universe to form.
>
>
> IIUC that's exactly Burkhard's point, that you have no idea what
> values those cosmological constants could be to form a universe. All
> you know for certain are the values that work for *this* universe.
> You're still special pleading your preferred presumptions.
>

As I see it, debating the constants in multiverses is the tantamount
to arguing over the cheshire cat in the Alice in Wonderland fairy tail.
What is the breed of cat? Does the cat slowly and gradually disappear
over long periods of time or does it disappear quickly in fits and
starts. The point is the only universe we know anything about exist
only because the physical constants have values which allow the
development and evolution of the universe. How the exacting values
cam to be, is the only question that need answers.

[Burkhard]

But you don't know if these values are "exacting" unless you compare
them to other universes, that is the point you keep missing