Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?

[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

[Anomalocaris]

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?

[max-greece]

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.

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

[Chas]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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).

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

---

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.