An argument foe Grand Design, maybe?

[David McArthur]

I was watching a discussion on whether the the universe is the way it is through design or by chance. The design theory is basically that the universe is such a complex entity and that for it to have evolved exactly as we see it, then it must have been designed. The counter theory is that we live in a multiverse, as possibly predicted by M theory, and that if there are enough universes then eventually you will find one exactly like the one we inhabit. It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory. However I was thinking that perhaps there is a clue in the formation of the early universe. Immediately after the big bang there was nothing but pure energy, and that after a short period of expansion the energy 'condensed' into matter. The behaviour of matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature, i.e. gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. Presumably these forces existed and were ingrained into the fabric of the universe from the outset, that is before the matter that they act upon even existed. So if the forces of nature existed prior to the matter that they control, does that not imply forward planning, and therefore an argument for design?

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory.

Incorrect. It is not possible to prove there is not a multiverse, because there are no empirical tests for it. But there is nothing genuinely scientific about a theory that cannot be tested: it's a mere speculation.

Worse still for the multiverse explanation, even if there were a multiverse it would be a non-sequitur to imagine that it would increase the chances of our universe existing. It does not. It is premised on a mathematical fallacy -- that of combining the hypothesis of infinite universes with the hypothesis that there is a limited set of variable properties in those universes. But in an infinite set of universes there is, by definition, an infinite number of "other ways things could be." That means that no matter how many universes you posit, it never increases the chances of one particular outcome.

This fallacy is called "The Gambler's Fallacy." It's very easy to make, as the proliferation of casinos and lotteries will attest -- but it is a fallacy none the less. We're playing out universes with an infinite-sized roulette wheel, and numbers never repeat; for whenever one particular number may appear, there is always an infinite set of numbers available on the next spin.

Go with the design hypothesis. It may raise questions for you, but at least it's mathematically possible.

[Greylorn Ell]

I. Can;

Been through your argument several times and my first impression remains unchanged. This is an example of superb philosophical thinking, the only argument against that goofy multiverse theory that actually works.

Shit! I should have thought of it. Truth is, there's no chance that I would have done so in a thousand years.

I intend to steal your argument and publish it in the revision of my book, reworded just enough to avoid copyright conflicts. I will include as many credits as are available (meaning Forum access and thread description, your handle, and whatever else you care to provide).

Knowing that there is one competent philosopher out there does not exactly restore my faith in the competence of philosophers in general, but provides a glimmer of hope for a formal field of study with a dismal track record! Thank you.

Greylorn

[Immanuel Can]

Greylorn:

You are most kind. I'm always glad and surprised when I make myself useful. If I have said anything insightful, it may be an accident.

[Melchior]

I was watching a discussion on whether the the universe is the way it is through design or by chance. The design theory is basically that the universe is such a complex entity and that for it to have evolved exactly as we see it, then it must have been designed. The counter theory is that we live in a multiverse, as possibly predicted by M theory, and that if there are enough universes then eventually you will find one exactly like the one we inhabit. It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory. However I was thinking that perhaps there is a clue in the formation of the early universe. Immediately after the big bang there was nothing but pure energy, and that after a short period of expansion the energy 'condensed' into matter. The behaviour of matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature, i.e. gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. Presumably these forces existed and were ingrained into the fabric of the universe from the outset, that is before the matter that they act upon even existed. So if the forces of nature existed prior to the matter that they control, does that not imply forward planning, and therefore an argument for design?

By what?

[Arising_uk]

... But in an infinite set of universes there is, by definition, an infinite number of "other ways things could be." That means that no matter how many universes you posit, it never increases the chances of one particular outcome. ...

But this is based upon the assumption that there has to be a causal sequence? What if they are 'ALL' there already?

As an aside - according to an old 'computational universe' paper I once read it'd apparently be more efficient to compute all the possible outcomes of the universe rather than just the one we 'see'.

[Immanuel Can]

But this is based upon the assumption that there has to be a causal sequence? What if they are 'ALL' there already?

No difference, so long as their number is infinite. The same thing applies. ∞ : 1 is still the same ratio, regardless of whether new universes are being generated or they all exist already. And it's always an infinitely bad bet.

[Ginkgo]

But this is based upon the assumption that there has to be a causal sequence? What if they are 'ALL' there already?

No difference, so long as their number is infinite. The same thing applies. ∞ : 1 is still the same ratio, regardless of whether new universes are being generated or they all exist already. And it's always an infinitely bad bet.

You are comparing a finite number of trials with an infinite number of trials. I would agree with UK in terms of the "ALL" being there. In other words, the universe has a finite number of possible configurations. If it is happening now in a single universe then, it could happen again given a infinite number of universe over an infinite period of time.

[Immanuel Can]

Ginko, you wrote...

You are comparing a finite number of trials with an infinite number of trials.

The multiverse argument requires that there are infinite universes. This, by definition means there is also an infinite number of ways things can be. If, as you seem to be now saying, but then you argue against the explanatory power of infinity:

the universe has a finite number of possible configurations.

This requires, then that the universe is not infinite, since then it would have infinite possible configurations, and we're back to the question of why there exists only a limited range of variables or configurations of variables, and how these necessary ranges were established at the beginning. In short, we're back to some sort of causal rather than probabilistic account of the universe, and back to the God question. You've killed the multiverse hypothesis.

If it is happening now in a single universe then, it could happen again given a infinite number of universe over an infinite period of time.

Here you refer to the probabilistic argument and restore the multiverse hypothesis. But it is absolutely dependent on the idea that infinite possibilities exist in an infinite universe. So now you are forced to drop the "finite configurations" idea you stated above, and opt again for "infinite."

So which is it? Is the universe infinite or finite? If the former, you can get the multiverse hypothesis but it no longer explains the existence of any particular kind of universe, and hence fails to explain our kind of universe; if the latter, it denies the whole multiverse hypothesis, and again the explanation fails. But you're going to have to pick one, because they directly contradict each other.

[Ginkgo]

Let"s clear this bit up first.

Are we taking about the following?

(a) Infinite in terms of number of universes.
(b) Finite in terms of configurations with a single universe.

[Immanuel Can]

Ginko:

Good question.

The multiverse hypothesis employs the term "universe" rather ambiguously...perhaps even disingenuously.

I'll defer to Oxford here, since we should have some agreement about what we are going to mean. Oxford says it is, "All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." If that's right, we'd be incorrect to posit the existence of multiple universes on a single plane of existence, and would thus have to imagine the existence of empirically unverifiable "other" parallel universes in other dimensions. That would take us into the territory of pure fiction. But that is precisely where the multiverse hypothesis goes.

So the multiverse hypothesis takes definition a) as you list it: "infinite number of universes."

Now definition b) is generally accepted to be true, though we cannot verify it scientifically since we can't actually get out there and test everything. But as a supposition, it seems more likely to be right than not. But what is clear is that in every part of the galaxy we live in that we can measure in any way, there is a very tightly limited set of variables and an even more limited set of configurations of variables, that make possible our existence. And this has traditionally been a starting point for what is called the "fine-tuning argument," namely the argument that this particular set of variables is so unlikely to happen by accident that no reasonable person could prefer the accidental hypothesis of the origin of these values to the design hypothesis, i.e. to God as an explanation.

And at first view, that's right. But the multiverse hypothesis is then supposed to come online and explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. It's supposed to do this by employing infinite probabilities, but as I have pointed out, that explanation can only even become remotely plausible if we already limit the variables. If the variables themselves are infinite, then we can no longer use them to explain how any single configuration came to be, because then there is an infinite chance against any particular set of variables happening.

The upshot of your question is this, then: we have no empirical data for a) and it would not help increase probability calculations if we did, as infinite variables cancel out the advantage of infinite recursions. If b) we are back to the fine-tuning question.

So which way do you wish to go?

[HexHammer]

I was watching a discussion on whether the the universe is the way it is through design or by chance. The design theory is basically that the universe is such a complex entity and that for it to have evolved exactly as we see it, then it must have been designed. The counter theory is that we live in a multiverse, as possibly predicted by M theory, and that if there are enough universes then eventually you will find one exactly like the one we inhabit. It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory. However I was thinking that perhaps there is a clue in the formation of the early universe. Immediately after the big bang there was nothing but pure energy, and that after a short period of expansion the energy 'condensed' into matter. The behaviour of matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature, i.e. gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. Presumably these forces existed and were ingrained into the fabric of the universe from the outset, that is before the matter that they act upon even existed. So if the forces of nature existed prior to the matter that they control, does that not imply forward planning, and therefore an argument for design?

"Intelligent Design" was utterly debunked in the Dover Highschool class action case.

But faithful people WANTS to believe so they will dismiss the case and continue their delusional ways.

[Immanuel Can]

"Intelligent Design" was utterly debunked in the Dover Highschool class action case.

Not even remotely true. Check it out. Dover was a legal case, not a scientific one, and one in which the issue was not the truth, but what can be taught in schools in view of the separation of church and state. Whether ID had any scientific basis or not was not decided, nor did anyone attempt to decide it; it was simply decided that ID would have implications that were religious, and thus could not be taught to secular and other students in a publicly-funded forum. Hardly an "utterly debunking." It was a practical policy decision based on constitutional issues.

What most people from outside the debate do not understand is that there is a difference between plain Creationism and Intelligent Design. ID is just an engineering paradigm being used to explain things that a gradualist (i.e. Evolutionist) paradigm is unable to explain. But engineering and gradualism are both scientific explanations that are regularly used for a variety of different scientific tasks; the controversy arises not because ID is itself Creationist, but because if there is any "engineering" to life, then it would be impossible to avoid the conclusion that there was an Engineer behind that. And that would compel belief in a God of some kind.

Not liking the outcome of an investigation is a poor and unscientific reason for rejecting a paradigm -- especially one that requires absolutely no metaphysical assumptions but just a willingness to examine evidence differently, using a widely-recognized and non-sectarian alternate paradigm. However, the secular state has its own agenda, and truth isn't at the top. Policy -- particularly effective governance policy -- is their priority. And the Dover decision reflects only that.

[Arising_uk]

... or they all exist already. And it's always an infinitely bad bet.

How so? As if they all exist already then every type exists so the bet is certainty? You'd even have ones where all the various 'God's of Creation' exist.

[HexHammer]

Ad hominem

. Even if I were a coward, whether I were telling the truth or not would not impinge on that.

Here, this will assist you in acquiring the basics of logical argumentation....

AD HOMINEM (ABUSIVE)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.

I can't help you with acquiring basic politeness and rudimentary civil behaviour... I fear you'll have to do that yourself.

Nice diversion, now you just make lame diversion to cover that you are utterly wrong.