Posts: 815
Threads: 66
Joined: October 8, 2010
Reputation:
11
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 9:43 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 9:45 am by little_monkey.)
I've already answered this on some similar thread -- how many threads are there on the fine-tuning argument?? Anyhoo, how is it that the universe is fine-tuned to life when 99.9999999% of this universe is totally hostile to life?
Other link: http://atheistforums.org/thread-19921.html
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 9:48 am
(July 26, 2013 at 9:02 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: (July 26, 2013 at 1:00 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I meant as in comparison to the God hypothesis. If you had to choose between (a) the multiverse theory or (b) the God hypothesis, which of the two would be the simplest explanation? It would be (a) of course because it's more consistent with reality as we understand it.
Actually, the simplest explanation would be God in that case. That was the point of my post: if you posit the multiverse hypothesis, then you're going against Occam's Razor to potentially an infinite degree. Occam's Razor just has to do with which hypothesis accounts for the data least redundantly, not which is more consistent with reality as we usually understand it (i.e naturally rather than supernaturally).
Really?? Just how simple do you think a god that did all those things could be? And just because you labelled such a enormous pile of bullshit with just three letters you think it is therefore only a simple little lie?
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 9:48 am
(July 26, 2013 at 9:02 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: (July 26, 2013 at 1:00 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I meant as in comparison to the God hypothesis. If you had to choose between (a) the multiverse theory or (b) the God hypothesis, which of the two would be the simplest explanation? It would be (a) of course because it's more consistent with reality as we understand it.
Actually, the simplest explanation would be God in that case. That was the point of my post: if you posit the multiverse hypothesis, then you're going against Occam's Razor to potentially an infinite degree. Occam's Razor just has to do with which hypothesis accounts for the data least redundantly, not which is more consistent with reality as we usually understand it (i.e naturally rather than supernaturally).
I don't agree. God would have to be infinitely more complex than the sum of the universes in a multi-verse.
If the process that produced the universe can be repeated (with or without variation) then the number of times it might have occurred doesn't really increase the complexity.
Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 9:55 am
(July 26, 2013 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: For example, suppose you are presented a pack of cards and happen to draw an ace. The question before you is if your draw was an intentional even orchestrated by another entity or it occurred without any intelligence behind it. Here the drawing of an ace is comparable to existence of our universe.
One answer would be that you can draw many cards and that they'd be different all the time and the one you drew this time just happened to be an ace. This would be the multiverse hypothesis.
Another answer would be that the person holding the pack specifically orchestrated things so that you'd end up drawing an ace. This would be the god hypothesis.
Which one seems simpler to you?
The first. But the comparison isn't quite right. For the multiverse hypothesis, you posit innumerable other universes to explain the permission of life in our own, while with the deck of cards it's considerably more limited with respect to transgressing Occam's Razor. Am I missing something?
But my point is that it has to be admitted that it does fall afoul of Occam, not that it doesn't explain the fine-tuning.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 10:04 am
The fine-tuning argument is simply backwards - cart before horse.
We are here as we are because the universe is as it is. If it were different, we wouldn't be here.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 10:15 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 10:16 am by Anomalocaris.)
(July 26, 2013 at 9:55 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: (July 26, 2013 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: For example, suppose you are presented a pack of cards and happen to draw an ace. The question before you is if your draw was an intentional even orchestrated by another entity or it occurred without any intelligence behind it. Here the drawing of an ace is comparable to existence of our universe.
One answer would be that you can draw many cards and that they'd be different all the time and the one you drew this time just happened to be an ace. This would be the multiverse hypothesis.
Another answer would be that the person holding the pack specifically orchestrated things so that you'd end up drawing an ace. This would be the god hypothesis.
Which one seems simpler to you?
The first. But the comparison isn't quite right. For the multiverse hypothesis, you posit innumerable other universes to explain the permission of life in our own, while with the deck of cards it's considerably more limited with respect to transgressing Occam's Razor. Am I missing something?
But my point is that it has to be admitted that it does fall afoul of Occam, not that it doesn't explain the fine-tuning.
It does not run afoul occum's razor if the competing theories are either unsound or invalid, or in fact are no less complex, or have undefinable implicit complexity, while only appearing to be less complex.
Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 10:22 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 10:29 am by MindForgedManacle.)
(July 26, 2013 at 9:48 am)Chuck Wrote: Really?? Just how simple do you think a god that did all those things could be? And just because you labelled such a enormous pile of bullshit with just three letters you think it is therefore only a simple little lie?
It would have to be, by necessity, simpler than the multiverse hypothesis, which posits an infinite (or at least innumerable) set of other universes.
(July 26, 2013 at 9:48 am)max-greece Wrote: I don't agree. God would have to be infinitely more complex than the sum of the universes in a multi-verse.
WHAT? God is LESS parsimonious than an infinite number of universes? -_- Come on.
Quote:If the process that produced the universe can be repeated (with or without variation) then the number of times it might have occurred doesn't really increase the complexity.
It's not about complexity, it's about transgressing Occam's Razor, in this case to a potentially infinite degree.
(July 26, 2013 at 10:15 am)Chuck Wrote: It does not run afoul occum's razor if the competing theories are either unsound or invalid, or in fact are no less complex, or have undefinable implicit complexity, while only appearing to be less complex.
It's not about complexity, but about redundancy. There's no escaping that an infinite number of universes is far less parsimonious than practically any other explanation. That doesn't make it wrong (Occam's Razor doesn't determime truth, it's just a useful principle).
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 10:42 am
God is said to be an infinite all powerful, all knowing, personal being. A multiverse doesn't know anything, it doesn't feel anything, it doesn't have self awareness, it doesnt act, etc. It is much simpler than God.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 10:52 am
No, you misunderstand occum's razor. Redundancy per se is irrelevant to occum's razor. The parsimony referred to in occum's razor pertains to minimization of probabilistically multiplicative assumptions. It does not refer to single assumption containing probabilistically indifferent, or cumulative redundancies.
Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 11:03 am by MindForgedManacle.)
(July 26, 2013 at 10:52 am)Chuck Wrote: No, you misunderstand occum's razor. Redundancy per se is irrelevant to occum's razor. The parsimony referred to in occum's razor pertains to minimization of probabilistically multiplicative assumptions. It does not refer to single assumption containing probabilistically indifferent, or cumulative redundancies.
The multiverse hypothesis is a 'probablistically multiplicative assumption', and a massive one at that.
(July 26, 2013 at 10:42 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: God is said to be an infinite all powerful, all knowing, personal being. A multiverse doesn't know anything, it doesn't feel anything, it doesn't have self awareness, it doesnt act, etc. It is much simpler than God.
Apologists don't tend to say that God is infinite, but that he has those attributes (power, knowledge, moral character) to their maximum, hence the concept of "maximal greatness". Under that, God remains the less parsimonious explanation to Occam's razor. Not a good one, but that's never been my point.
|
