RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 11:27 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 11:36 am by Anomalocaris.)
(July 26, 2013 at 11:00 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(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.
No, multiverse is not probabilistically multiplicative. Each universe is not required to be exactly the way it might be, so the probability of the entire multiverse scenario is not the product of the probability of each constituent universe being the way it is. s infinitesimal.
Think of the scenario of a pot of water boiling. The probability that water will boil when it reaches 212 degrees is not the same as the multiplicative probability of each roiling bubble in the pot being precisely the size, location and velocity vector it is. The probability of there being many bubbles is one, but the probability of there being precisely the arrangement of bubbles you specify is infinitesimal.
Also, it is not excessive redundancy to say a pot boiling long enough will produce, within a certain tolerance, bubbles of every physically possible size, shape and movement vector within the environment prevailing in the pot.
