Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?

[Anomalocaris]

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.

No, it is a conjecture, not a hypothesis.

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.

No, "intentional agent" is a meaningless expression that says nothing about the scope, mechansim, and complexity involved, and follows from neither known first principle, nor consist with any known empirical principle. As such it contains nothing, is based on nothing, explains nothing, and is nothing. As nothing, it is certainly not the most parsimonious way to be nothing. Simply shutting up will do the same more honestly and humbly, threrfore more parsimoniously, then invoking "intelligent" or "agent".

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.

The parsimony of the multiverse comes from the fact that it assumes nothing about the nature of fundamental constants of the universe, and quantum mechanical concept of randomness, that does not follow from any postulated first principles that we have reason to suspect to be true. i.e. it dispenses with the assumption that fundamental constants has to be what we see even though we haven't the slightest idea why, that what we suspect to be true randomness in fact must only happen in the way it actually observed to happen. If we know of no reason why things can't be different, then do not assume that it can not be, and is not, different. Multiverse is a conjecture about how, if not making these assumptions is correct, reality might actually be on the true macro scale.

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.

Multiverse does not ACCOUNT for fine tuning. It remove the basis for saying there had been tuning. It was not conceived in response to the garbage about tunning. It followed logically and economically from our current understanding of fundamental lws of physics, which says fundmental constants has no reason for being what they are in our observation, and random event has no reason for happening only in the way we observe to eventuate. The economic answer is they can be different where we havn't yet observed.

No intentional agent is called for, we are here only because we are possible and all that can ever be possible would eventuate, and therefore we eventuates.


By the way, go back and think about the boiling pot example. The superficial complexity of the multitude of bubbles do not make boiling pot non-parsimonious. The parsiminious laws of phase change and fluid behavior, applied uniformly over a pot of water, makes the multitude of bubbles parsimonious.

The simple laws that respond to fundamental constants, and the lack of laws constraining fundamental constants, is what makes appearent complexity of multiverse simple at a more fundamental level and a rather parsimonious conjecture of how reality really is.

The conjecture of "intelligent agent" on the other hand, consists of nothing that allows its parsimony to be evaluated. In fact it consists of nothing at all. .