RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 30, 2013 at 11:57 pm
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2013 at 12:04 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(July 26, 2013 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: 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.The multiverse is not really comparable to a pack of cards. You have to have the order first before you can have an orderly result. A pack of cards already has a set number 52 or 54 if you count the Jokers, specific suites, etc. You start with system so structured that it will eventually yield an ace on the first cut.
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?
On the other hand, the theoretical multiverse has no initial order to even determine the possible types of universes it could create. It would be more like playing a slot machine and having an ace pop out when you get three cherries. Moreover, if this universe can just pop into a viable existence, I don't see any reason why it couldn't just fall apart randomly too. Why should constants stay constant?
I opt for the card shark as being the simpler explanation for the player that keeps drawing aces.
