RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 11:04 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 11:14 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(July 26, 2013 at 6:15 pm)Chuck Wrote: At its most basic, multiverse isn't the addition of an unnecessary assumption. Rather it is the subtraction of an unsupported, albeit as yet in falsified, assumption.
What? The multiverse is a hypothesis at best, meaning it hasn't reached the point - with respect to evidence - that it becomes un-parsimonious to not accept it. In other words, it hasn't reached the point of being near-uncontestably being assumed as true.
Quote:Unique Universe asserts for some reason what we see for which we know of no cause is the only way things can be, and there is special cobstraints, as yet unknown, that prevented physical constants from being anything else. Multiverse does not assert that our universe is the only one, or that our physical constants are as the only way they could be. The most basic version of multiverse hypothesis simply allows these two dubious constraints to be removed and see what follows.
Which makes it not as parsimonious as the intentional agent supposition for why the universe allows for life despite it (apparently) being absurdly improbable. That doesn't make it wrong or more probable, just that the objection of not being parsimonious in comparison to a God and a single universe cannot really be said to be wrong.
Quote:Multiverse could be thought of as the most parsimonious interpretation of reality possible based on what is really known of how the laws of physics work at its most basic level.
What about the operations of nature at the most basic level says that the multiverse hypothesis is parsimonious? I'm aware of the many-worlds interpretation of QM, but I don't recall that having the majority of purchase in the physics community.
Quote:Unique universe view actually requires certain assumption which follows from no known first principle, and more overarching than could feasibly be verified by observation, to be taken for granted.
I've not advocated a 'unique universe view', I've merely pointed out that the multiverse hypothesis can validly labelled as un-parsimonious in comparison to an intentional agent supposition if you're supposing the truth of the multiverse hypothesis to directly account for fine-tuning (in my view, despite being an atheist). In addition, we can't (honestly) assume more than the evidence currently supports. We know that there is a universe. Whether or not there is more is not known, which doesn't make it an assumption.
Quote:Multiverse theory on the other hand, removes these assumptions.
Aside from the fact that the Multiverse is a hypothesis at the time being, not accepting the existence of other universes, or the un-parsimonious nature of the supposition in comparison to others, is not an assumption. Rather, it's a refusal to go farther than the evidence allows and accepting valid criticism.
