Response to Richard Dawkins and Lee Smolin on the anthropic principle

I wanted to upload a response to Spawktalks case for moral nihilism, but this video by Richard Dawkins was just too good to pass up.
Richard Dawkins offered a response to the teleological argument. The teleological argument has 2 premises and one simple conclusion
P1: The Fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance, physical necessity, or design
P2: The Fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or physical necessity
C: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design
Richard Dawkins, in response to the design argument, opined that we may be living in a many-worlds ensemble, where there are billions or trillions more universes with very different constants of nature.
The many-worlds ensemble however has 2 big problems
1st: A multiverse is much more complex than cosmic designer. Ockhams razor says that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. Since the cosmic designer hypothesis is much simpler than the bloated ontology of a many-worlds ensemble, we should believe in the designer hypothesis rather than the many-worlds hypothesis
2nd: There is no evidence for the multiverse except for the fine-tuning of the universe.
In the middle of the video, Dawkins repeated Smolins Hypothesis which posits a Darwinian explanation for our fine-tuned universe. I saw this line coming from a mile away, and I knew that I HAD to make a video response because Im pretty sure that now that Dawkins has said it, its going to become extremely popular on youtube.
Basically, Smolin posits that whenever a black hole is created, a new universe is created. So since black-hole producing universes have an advantage in producing baby universes, this many-worlds ensemble will be populated by black-hole producing universes.
This undercuts the design argument because in order to get black holes, you need large stars to collapse. However, if you have many exploding stars then you will get a universe full of carbon and other heavy elements which are needed for the universe to have life.
However, Smolins hypothesis is not without its flaws. The biggest one is this:
A universe which can produce black holes without first having to produce stars will produce many more black holes ,and thus many more baby universes, then universes which first have to produce stars in order to produce black holes. Thus, we should not see a multiverse populated with life-bearing universes, but rather a bunch of universes which are filled with nothing but black holes.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Ben
• Lee
• Smolin
• many
• worlds
• hypothesis
• fine
• tuning
• designer
• design
• richard
• carrier

[MrFungus420]

Misapplication of Occam.

We know that at least one universe exists.

Therefore, to posit a multiverse (admittedly, a controversial idea) is to posit more of the same, it posits multiples of what already exists.

To posit a designer is to try to introduce something completely new and entirely different.

There is this universe, there may be others.

VS

There is this universe, and there is a designer of it.

Quantity vs something new and completely different.

[MrFungus420]

As for Smolin's hypothesis, it is just that...an hypothesis.

An hypothesis is a _possible_ explanation.

It is the beginning of scientific inquiry.

Now, it must be tested. Before it is accepted as an explanation, there must be a substantial body of evidence to support it and none that contradicts it. Ideally, it should have predictive power.

[AaronPatrickLeeMusic]

How do we know that premise 2 is true? That is, how could one demonstrate that this universe did not emerge by chance or physical necessity? From what I understand of cosmology, our universe was inevitable due to natural laws and gravity (I think Stephen Hawking posits this in The Grand Design). Overall, I enjoyed your video. I should note that Dawkins is delving into an untestable hypothesis, making this particular idea unscientific.

[CarlosMarti123]

@45gattaca You are a moron.

1) Yes, black holes can be created without stars. Look up "primordial black hole."

2) Evolution does not disprove God. /watch?v=mEwrkjTbWgU

3) Saying someone "does not make sense" is not an argument at all.

[Sqrtinfinity]

What are you even talking about? Do you any knowledge in Physics at all? Please, stop making videos.

[chickenisafoolofatoo]

Actually Ockham's Razor would state that the observable universe is the end of the line, not a designer. A designer is an unnecessary addition - we exist so we know we exist, if you will (ignoring arguments regarding "is this the Matrix?" and all other manner regarding reality). The question "where did the universe come from?" is at present an open one and Smolin's hypothesis is not the only multiverse hypothesis out there, but as far as I know ANY multiverse suffers the same shortcomings.

[HigHlifEboS07]

ur a fat peace of shit