Anthropic Principle vs Goddidit

[ThePinsir]

A mechanism? The laws of physics aren't good enough?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Multiverse theories seem like a blank check that throws our specific universe into an anything goes mix of bizzare possibilities. In a Multiverse you can justify any assumption.

You obviously didn't look at the Scientific American article. I'm not obliged to explain this to you, but I will.

You can still determine the averages among the universes, with some features being more frequent than others. It's sort of like the Bell curve.
If the anthropic principle is true, the features of our universe should tend toward the averages, and outliers should only be as frequent as we would expect by chance. We can work out the calculation as a Bonferroni correction, a mathematical technique for defining the null hypothesis when there are "multiple comparisons" being made.
This is how they calculated the expected magnitue of dark energy. When astrophysicists checked it out, they found that the magnitude of dark energy fell within the average.

---

How do you know this to be true? How do you know in the subset of universes sans intellect....my laptop would eventually show up?

The formation of laptops is permitted under the law of physics, otherwise no intelligent or unintelligent being would ever make them.

The outliers you dismiss are exactly the problem. Without some prior constraints infinite permutations of infinite potential can produce anything at all. There can be no such thing as an average universe among an infinite number of such. No ratio between finite numbers and infinity can be made. What is the average of 0 and infinity?

[Coffee Jesus]

Ryantology, you mean more parsimonious, not less.

---

Chad accused the multiverse theory of being like a blank check that lets you write anything in, but that's more aptly fits his theistic hypothesis. #irony

---

The formation of laptops is permitted under the law of physics, otherwise no intelligent or unintelligent being would ever make them.

I agree that the formation of laptops is permitted under the laws of physics....but how do you know they can come into existence in worlds that are devoid of intelligent beings?

Randomization. So many things are randomized. Meteorite impacts. Techtonic plate cracks. Canyons. Wandering microbes. Electron or photon wave contact with objects. Molecules being deflected by oppositely charged molecules. Electron spin. Wind. Photon emission.

If I have a cloud of positively and negatively charged gases, it's possible that a molecule could get shot out of the cloud at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers per second, because it's possible that it could repeatedly get repeled by same-charge molecules while always staying between opposite-charged molecules such that their attractive forces roughly balance eachother out. This super fact molecule could land anywhere.
Statistically, this is very unlikely, but it can happen thanks to the randomization of natural forces.

---

The outliers you dismiss are exactly the problem. Without some prior constraints infinite permutations of infinite potential can produce anything at all. There can be no such thing as an average universe among an infinite number of such. No ratio between finite numbers and infinity can be made. What is the average of 0 and infinity?

As long as the process is repetitive, you can do the calculation.

[Heywood]

Randomization. So many things are randomized. Meteorite impacts. Techtonic plate cracks. Canyons. Wandering microbes. Electron or photon wave contact with objects. Molecules being deflected by oppositely charged molecules. Electron spin. Wind. Photon emission.

If I have a cloud of positively and negatively charged gases, it's possible that a molecule could get shot out of the cloud at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers per second, because it's possible that it could repeatedly get repeled by same-charge molecules while always staying between opposite-charged molecules such that their attractive forces roughly balance eachother out. This super fact molecule could land anywhere.
Statistically, this is very unlikely, but it can happen thanks to the randomization of natural forces.

What does a multiverse, quantum mechanics, and your powerful randomization get us?

Imagine a universe just like ours. In that universe is a man that some call Tim.

Now Tim wishes to explode a bush. So he points at the bush. In most universe nothing happens....But in a subset of universes....as a matter of pure happenstance, a quantum fluctuation happens at the same time and the bush is transformed into an exploding bush. Tim tries this again....and in most universes....nothing happens the second time he tries it...but in a subset of universes....as a matter of happenstance...a quantum fluctuation happens that transform the second bush into an exploding bush. There are going to be some universes that whenever Tim tries to cast a spell....as a matter of happenstance the effect of the spell he was casting comes to realization.

A problem I have with an infinite number of universes....is it leads to ridiculous worlds in which magic and sorcery exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Also what are the limits of randomization? Are some things so fundamental that they must be consistent across all universes? Or can even those change in a multi-multiverse? The theory is an unmanageable monster.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

My laptop came into existence. The coming into existence of my laptop would not occur unless there was an intellect.

In this forum there are numerous examples of discussions between intellects. These discussion are events that could not exist without intellects. Some events are dependent on intellects and cannot be explained otherwise.

---

It's not like we have psychic powers that can defy the laws of physics.
Given enough universes with indeterminate outcomes, something like your laptop would eventually show up somewhere.

Believing in multiple universes, each with its own set of rules, is like believing in gods. We know that other planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies exist because we can see them. To think that other universes exist is a stretch because we don't have any idea how large ours is or even what it is. So if other universes exist we will never know it, just like we will never see any gods. Besides, even if there are (were, or will be) other universes do they really exist at this very second of our time scale?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Chad accused the multiverse theory of being like a blank check that lets you write anything in, but that's more aptly fits his theistic hypothesis. #irony

Yup.

[Neo-Scholastic]

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

An infinite number of universes requires a mechanism for generating those universes. How is this universe generating mechanism less parsimonious than God?

Or even, how is a universe generating mechanism different from a deistic god?

---

Chad accused the multiverse theory of being like a blank check that lets you write anything in, but that's more aptly fits his theistic hypothesis. #irony

Yup.

Quite the opposite. The proposed Multiverse is absurdist. In a theistic universe a fundamental order defines reality.

[Heywood]

---

---

It's not like we have psychic powers that can defy the laws of physics.
Given enough universes with indeterminate outcomes, something like your laptop would eventually show up somewhere.

Believing in multiple universes, each with its own set of rules, is like believing in gods. We know that other planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies exist because we can see them. To think that other universes exist is a stretch because we don't have any idea how large ours is or even what it is. So if other universes exist we will never know it, just like we will never see any gods. Besides, even if there are (were, or will be) other universes do they really exist at this very second of our time scale?

I don't think you can reasonably explain certain observations unless you consider the possibility of God or a Multiverse.

I did two threads outlining why I believe the above statement to be true. "Fine Tuning Heywood style" and "Who rolls the dice for you?"

[Coffee Jesus]

Randomization. So many things are randomized. Meteorite impacts. Techtonic plate cracks. Canyons. Wandering microbes. Electron or photon wave contact with objects. Molecules being deflected by oppositely charged molecules. Electron spin. Wind. Photon emission.

If I have a cloud of positively and negatively charged gases, it's possible that a molecule could get shot out of the cloud at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers per second, because it's possible that it could repeatedly get repeled by same-charge molecules while always staying between opposite-charged molecules such that their attractive forces roughly balance eachother out. This super fact molecule could land anywhere.
Statistically, this is very unlikely, but it can happen thanks to the randomization of natural forces.

What does a multiverse, quantum mechanics, and your powerful randomization get us?

Imagine a universe just like ours. In that universe is a man that some call Tim.

Now Tim wishes to explode a bush. So he points at the bush. In most universe nothing happens....But in a subset of universes....as a matter of pure happenstance, a quantum fluctuation happens at the same time and the bush is transformed into an exploding bush. Tim tries this again....and in most universes....nothing happens the second time he tries it...but in a subset of universes....as a matter of happenstance...a quantum fluctuation happens that transform the second bush into an exploding bush. There are going to be some universes that whenever Tim tries to cast a spell....as a matter of happenstance the effect of the spell he was casting comes to realization.

A problem I have with an infinite number of universes....is it leads to ridiculous worlds in which magic and sorcery exist.

Nice attempt at the reductio ad absurdum, but how do you know there aren't any universes in which this occurs? How do you know the conclusion is false?

---

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

An infinite number of universes requires a mechanism for generating those universes. How is this universe generating mechanism less parsimonious than God?

It isn't necessarily less parsimonious, but it has more evidence.