Re:Response to Richard Dawkins and Lee Smolin on the anthropic principle

[Sqrtinfinity]

Great response! Unlike the original video, you make some good points. I love how people think there is no evidence for the multi-verse. I would guarantee that 99% or more of people who watch these videos are not theoretical physicists.

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Where is the modesty? I hear religious preaching too often, but you don't even follow your own damn scripture.

[philhunter2005]

Great response, i enjoyed listening and agree with ur rebuttals. Thanks.

[djosephallen]

@philhunter2005

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed.

[tracygonecrazy1]

The reasoning in this video was worse than watching a dog attack his own image in a mirror, and more clueless than an orangutan with a rubik's cube. "proof for the multi-verse is that we already have one universe" ??? Bullshit ! Bullshit that stinks worse than a skunk that has fallen down the shithole of an outhouse !

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy

Well clearly you have the attention span and comprehension skills of an giraffe playing monopoly.(See, I can come up nonsensical analogies too).

You missed the entire point. This video is almost 4min. And I did not use the word "proof" ONE SINGLE TIME.

All Im advocating for, is that since we have evidence of at least one universe and zero evidence for a theistic god, that therefore, positing a multiverse is at least more in keeping with Occams razor than positing a theistic god.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Positing the existence of a multi-universe simply because we know that we live in A universe is not in keeping with Occams razor at all, far from it. It pure fantasising, nothing more. The multi-universe idea is a stillborn unscientific product of human error, it has nothing at all to do with science and as someone who values science I resent people like Dawkins making appeal to it as a source of explaination for anything, which it is not.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen I am making NO arguments for a theistic God or any God here. I am simply pointing out the sheer unscientific and unworthy notion of the multi-universe, for which there is no evidence and never will be. It should not be passed off as science because it isn't. I don't even think that it is good philosophy as it gets us nowhere and teaches us nothing. It's as bad a televangelist religion, maybe worse because people sometimes confuse it with science, sadly.

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

Dude, you dont have to be making arguments for a god in order to recognize, that this video is a response to a christian, who IS arguing for a god. One more time, I dont posit the mutliverse as an absolute explanation, I dont advocate for it,.all Im saying in THIS video, is that if I had to choose between the 2,for me, a multiverse seems like a more plausible idea than an all knowing conscious being.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen No, there is NO more evidence for the multi-vverse than there is for GOD. Appeal to Occam's razor all that you want, but it won't help you, because Occam's razor isn't proof either. Your multi-verse notion rests of your own personal 'faith' in it, and your own personal preference for it.  Nothing else.

[gespilk]

How can one believe in the FOAM or GOD when there is not a shred of Evidence to support them. If the FOAM exists then the question is WHAT CREATED THE FOAM?

I am willing to ask the question of What created X or Y until we get to the real question of: WHY there is SOMEthing instead of NOthing. In other words what kind of force will make Particles to pop out of NOthing and more importantly what creates that force.

[djosephallen]

@gespilk

Good questions. But as has been pointed out, there is nothing we know of that indicates that there shouldn't be something. Why suppose that the default state is nothing? In other words why SHOULDNT there be something rather than nothing?

Also, what is nothing? Its a very abstract concept. As soon as you try to describe it, it becomes something. Also....if "before" the universe there was nothing, except god, why should there be a god, rather than no god?

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Look, I respect honest atheists I really do. But I disrespect dishonest ones. If an atheist thinks that it is legitimate to use an idea like the multi-universe to support his position that a religious person (say a catholic) is perfectly within his right to say stuff like; "If there are an infinite number of other universe than surely one of them is heaven with St. Peter waiting.". See where it's going to lead you ?

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

I disagree with you that there is ZERO evidence to think there might be other universes. I dont know exactly what kind of evidence has been used to support it...but I do know that your blanket,dismissive and frankly arrogant statement is ridiculing the idea, when it is clearly much more complex, and is still being discussed within Mtheory, and Modal realism. Never say never my friend...

And heaven is supposedly immaterial, which makes it not a part of the physical multiverse.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen 1) Nobody says heaven is immaterial, who knows what heaven is ? 2) Call it arrogant if that helps you dismiss my point in your mind, but I'm sorry to inform you that there isn't any evidence for it, It s philosophical specualtion at best. 3) Theories are NOT evidence of anything.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen So my advice is to throw the whole idea of the multi-universe away and don't rely on it for anything, because it's a dead end philosophically and will always lead people with different belief systems to legitimatly cry foul on you. Don't call it science either. Rather, try to think of a better reason why the laws of physics are the way that they are. Accept the scientific problem for what it is instead of using a bogus argument to avoid it.

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

I dont have to throw it away because I dont hold it near and dear. Its simply an interesting and fun hypothesis to entertain, and Im not holding my breath for "proof" of it.

It is most certainly a scientific hypothesis. And all great ideas have started a such.

Maybe its a longshot. Maybe it seems absurd. But in that respect, it would certainly not be any different than the idea of a god.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen But don't you see the illogic of what you just said ? Two quotes: "It is most certainly a scientific hypothesis" and "it would certainly not be any different than the idea of a god". Don't you see the contradiction ? Neither it nor the idea of God are scientific hypothesis. They are both religious notions totally outside of science. There can never be proof of either proposition.

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

Nice cherry picking. Read what is in between those 2 statements, I was making a point that if people like you claim its such an impossibility..then in that respect its no different than god.

But you know, you are clearly some kind of PHD physics professor, since you so confidently claim that it has no place in science, and all these world renown physicists who are seriously studying the problem are clowns. So be it. This video was not a staunch defense of the MV anyways.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Yup, I stand by my assertion. It's NOT science, Those so called "world renown physicists" can 'study' they problem all they like, it will get hem nowhere in the end, because it's NOT science ! And you are exactly right, the idea of 'God' and the idea of the MV are equally religious notions.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Neither the idea of a god or the idea of a multi-verse can be call either plausible or implausible, because they are both religion, completely and forever inaccessible to science and scientific investigation.

[acepanson]

This comment is for both sides atheist and theist.

Stop using Occam's razor to prove a theory, it is Not a necessity. Occam's razor only states that the simplest solution is "usually" the correct one.

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". Albert Einstein.

[djosephallen]

@acepanson

Point taken. I dont think either of us are saying it PROVES our points, but we argue that out of both possibilities, Occam seems to be on our side.

[encarta007]

Wouldn't fine-tuning actually be evidence against an ominipotent Designer, since the constants are so sensitive? If the Designer had been more powerful, couldn't he have just made the entire values of constants friendlier to life?

Unless of course she wanted to fool us into thinking what most theists are thinking.

[djosephallen]

@encarta007:

Indeed. It has also been pointed out, that the "fine tuning" is no evidence for god, since  an all powerful being could have life thrive under ANY circumstances, tuned or not, thereby rendering the balance of the constants moot.

Thanks for your comment.

[encarta007]

Also, I'd like to point out that as long as the Chaotic Inflation theory or its implications such as multiple universes, are atleast remotely plausible, they do not have to be completely discarded. Also, if they're consistent with the current data and cannot be ruled out, I think it demonstrates that we do not have to invoke a supernatural creation.

Physicists Steven Weinberg and Victor Stenger goes into detail about this in their books.

[djosephallen]

@encarta:

Thats the thing. Up to now, we have needed ZERO supernatural explanations for all of the phenomenons we see in the natural world. So just because we have a very vague idea of these explanations and little evidence, doesn't mean we can rule them out. Any of them, in my view, is still more plausible than: "magic man done it".

Thanks again.

[waketherabble]

@NomosCharis

It's my opinion that you are just frustrating the dialoge by saying that something which is infinite must be simple.

I could just as easily posit, and with much more evidence, that everything is simpler than that which is infinite.

You simple attribute simplicity to the infinite without any logical authority. Here's an illustration:

1 is simpler than 2. 2 is simpler than 10...

Therefore, all ordinal numbers are simpler than infinity.

[waketherabble]

It doesn't do you any good to say that, "God knows something, thus it exits" in the effort to argue for his simplicity.

This begs the question, "How does God know it?"

This is just a more complicated version of the problem theists/deists have with answering, "Who designed the designer?"

[djosephallen]

@Wakwtherabble:

I agree, however, Nomos is basically arguing from the doctrine of divine simplicity, which basically states that god is infinite and not composed of any parts, therefore he is simple. As I told him, I am researching this doctrine as we speak, and I will upload a video soon (hopefully) refuting this idea which i honestly find very far fetched. But we will see what comes of it.

Thanks for commenting.

[waketherabble]

This is flawed reasoning, and I don't think I need to do much research to point it out.

NomosCharis posits that God created everything ex nihilo by "knowing" it into existence, and that nothing existed prior to that knowing . Paradoxically, nothing but the infinite capacity to "know" everything into existence existed.

While the "storage unit" analogy might be somewhat inappropriate, NomosCharis is positing that God is instead the "code" which writes existence into being.

[waketherabble]

This is, as I said earlier, begging the question.

Who, or what, wrote the code? Did God "know himself" into existence?

The fundamental flaw here is that while deists argue that nothing material can be created ex nihilo, they urge the acceptance of the premise that the immaterial need not conform to the "nothing begets nothing" rules which apply to the material world based on no metaphysical or empirical evidence.

Thus we can simply say, "I reject your premise," and be done with it.

[arktheball]

You are making an error here wake. You almost seem to be stating that diests claim nothing came from nothing by nothing and because of nothing. Which is not a diestic claim. You are forgeting that those events had a Causer, Mover, and Guider from a diestic standpoint. And the universe DOES seem to come from nothing. Modern cosmology has yet to find a way around the ultimate and absolute beginning of not only matter, but space and time. Big bang theory shows that this universe had exactly that.

[arktheball]

Here is an interesting thought I had while reading the above. Gods Omniscience, is a result of his timeless nature right? That is to say. Biblically God referenced himself as "I Am." God said that in reference to past present or future events in a finite sense, God is. So God knows everything because He exists at every possible moment in a finite timeline. Sound like I good conjunction and analysis of these two attributes?

[caelestis356]

The anthropic principle assumes fine tuning, first of all. Considering how little we know of this universe, how can we possibly assume that it was tweaked and tuned especially for us? Who are we to say that a universe with a different composition wouldn't have produced a different type of life? The anthropic principle is based around human self-importance. The kind of thinking you have to do to reach something like the anthropic principle baffles me, honestly.

[djosephallen]

@ caelestis

Its amazing solipsism. It has always baffled me as well. How anyone can look at any quality of this universe and deduce it must have all been made for humans borders on the absurd.

Thanks for commenting.

[proudfootz]

The gods imagined by most theists are themselves designed on the anthropic principle - there are very much like humans writ large.

People create - their gods create. People have wills - their gods have wills. People have emotions of love and hate - so do their gods.

The god of the philosophers - the first cause or whatever - is so bland and abstract that it has no real adherents.

[NomosCharis]

djosephallen,

How do you suppose that "an all knowing, all powerful, transcendent mind that always existed with no cause" must be such a complicated being? Perhaps it is very simple. The fact that it has (and needs) no cause would be a pointer in that direction. It is not as though it has parts or became infinite at some point. In fact, monotheistic theologians have always believed and taught that God is the most simple being. Is this something you have considered?

[djosephallen]

@Nomos

How do you suppose that it isn't complicated? Perhaps it is very simple? Perhaps....Theologians believe a lot of things...the problem is they give no evidence for any of it. Please enlighten me, and explain to me how a creator god that has the aforementioned capacities, that has ALL the knowledge and ALL the power to create this universe PLUS knows every position of every particle in the universe at all times ...(Cont)

[djosephallen]

....PLUS knows every thought and experience every human has ever had and will have for the rest of time..etc, etc, etc.... could possibly be anything aside from complex? Can you please give a coherent metaphysical description of this god and explain through what methodology he accomplishes all this? (PS...please watch the video linked in the sidebar).

[NomosCharis]

Watched the vid.

God's mind is not a storage unit. That would imply that his mind exists in order to store information that already exists outside of him. He does not know things because they 1st exist; whatever exists exists because God knows them. You have the order backwards. The reason God is omniscient is that he knows whatever he creates.

If God is before all things and uncaused, his existence is infinite. An infinite thing must be altogether simple, not made of parts.

[djosephallen]

Obviously god's mind would not be a physical storage unit. He is said to be immaterial. But this is the only way we as humans can understand the massive amounts of information god would require. Please explain how he stores it.

You say:

"He does not know things because they 1st exist; whatever exists exists because God knows them"

And pray tell, where did god acquire this information from. Oh of course, he didn't, he just always had it for no reason and no cause. Sounds really simple...(sarcasm)

[djosephallen]

You say:

"An infinite thing must be altogether simple, not made of parts."

Once again, you simply state, without any backing, that since god is infinite, therefore he must be simple. What frame of reference are you using to come to this conclusion? And how is it that you are privy to this information?

I'll ask again, please provide a coherent ontology of god,and a mechanism or methodology with which he accomplishes all that you claim.

[NomosCharis]

It doesn't matter the frame of reference I am using, and it is not that hard to understand. If something is infinite, it cannot be made up of parts, because finite parts cannot be added together to make infinity.  Otherwise, each part would have to be infinite by itself, but then a part would be equal to the whole. An infinite thing must be altogether simple.

So if God exists without a cause, he is infinite. If God is infinite, he is simple.

That is the logic.

[NomosCharis]

[cont.]

God does not store the information. That would imply that the information already exists outside of God, and that God's mind is somehow reacting to it. This of course cannot be, since God is the cause of the existence of all things. If it exists, it's because God has caused it to exist. Therefore, the knowledge of a thing is in God's mind before that thing exists. There is no need for "storage."

[cont.]

[NomosCharis]

God is pure being. He is what he is, always. He is that which exists of itself. He is the beginning and the end. He is that which was and which is and which is to come, from everlasting to everlasting. That would be his ontology.

There is no mechanism outside of God by which he does what he does, nor could there be. In the beginning, nothing existed except God. Therefore, there was no mechanism for God to use but himself. He creates and does all that he does through himself.

[djosephallen]

You are defending Divine Simplicity.Yet look at your statements."He is what he is" WHAT COGNITIVE CONTENT DOES THAT PROVIDE? NOTHING! It gives us no knowable attribute of god.

Example: What is a blark? A blark is what he is" Does that bring you closer to describing what a blark actually IS?

Look,I'm finding this interesting,so I will do a follow up video on Simplicity. I hope we can continue discussion on that video.Can you point me to literature you would recommend that defends your position?

[ahmarsidd]

"give no evidence for any of it. " DJosePhallen, your falling into the fallacy of composition at this point. It is not an empirical claim, rather it is a modal claim.

[NeedsEvidence]

@djosephallen, note that the existence of other universes might indeed lead to observable consequences for our universe: Hints in the cosmic background radiation, features in gravitational waves generated during the Big Bang, the values for neutrino masses, to name just three examples.

[djosephallen]

@NeedsEvidence...

Indeed. However as I stated in the video I am not versed in physics and/or cosmology enough to debate these issues. Thats why I tried to limit my response to Occam's razor, and the idea of a god being a simple explanation.

Thanks for your comment.