(July 15, 2014 at 9:48 am)DaFinchi Wrote: I do apologise, you're absolutely right: the SAP says the universe can only unfold this way and the WAP says it's a selection bias - and there's a specific variant of the WAP that rests on multiverse theory.
I don't find the original SAP or original WAP arguments very compelling (as you'll see from my most recent replies) as the former requires a massive assumption (i.e. physical constants can only unfold one way, for which there is no evidence) and the takes no account of probability (i.e. infinitessimal chance that the one universe happened to be one supporting life).
The multiverse variant is neat because it explains away the probability dilemma of the WAP. But a multiverse is also a big assumption.
Though thinking about it now, not necessarily any smaller an assumption than the SAP.
I guess I'd like to be a Gnostic Atheist - one who feels that you can, based on reason and not opinion, reach an atheistic conclusion. Because otherwise, while I can confidently reject the existence of the Bible's God, all I have against a creator vs SAP vs multiverse is... well... my opinion.
Which is why I'm looking for someone to show me why a creator is a bigger and less likely assumption than either the multiverse or SAP.
You really don't need there to be multiverses for the WAP to hold.
With the WAP you can't possibly put a probability on it (see Bayes Theorem). For instance it might be true that any universe must always have these fundamental constants. Could a universe exist where Pi is not 3.14? We have no idea.
You don't need to have the exact answer to a question in order to filter out the incredibly unlikely hypotheses.
