Absolute proof against the multiverse

[leroy]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

 

[Frog]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

Every number can be reduced universally to 1. The only other option would be 0 but.... Maybe 0 is God. Maybe nothing exists outside our universe?

 

[Jumi]

Where is the fine tuning of the universe? It looks almost empty.

 

[Altfish]

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

Do you know what a hypothesis is? It is an unproven explanation of a phenomena, so atheists / naturalists consider the possibility of a multiverse but it is far, far from proven.
To then throw Intelligent Design into the same sentence is crazy, ID has been thoroughly debunked as evolution is proven, it is a theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

1/ actually there is evidence that there might be other universes. In fact here is more evidence for multiple universes than there is for a single universe. See the bruising on the CMB and the corresponding volumes of our universe moving contrary to general universal expansion.

2/ what?

3/ no they wouldn't require any fine tuning and there is no evidence of fine-tuning, but much evidence of randomness. See the sloan digital sky survey.

4/ no they dont, please provide evidence for your claim

5/ total misunderstanding of penrose and more relevantly, lee smolin et al.

Until creationist can comprehend cosmology without making a total hash of it as you have done then cosmologists (not atheists) have nothing to worry about with the creationist claim "d'oh i dont understand so god poofed the universe out of nothing using god magic"

 

[exchemist]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

There seems to be a bit a non sequitur at the end of this. Why on earth would ID be an alternative to the multiverse hypothesis?

There are alternatives to the multiverse hypothesis, notably the hypothesis that there is only one universe, so far as we can tell. This "one universe" hypothesis certainly does not entail ID.

In fact it is a bit pointless discussing ID in the same content as any scientific hypothesis, since it is well established* that ID is not a scientific idea.

*cf Kitzmiller trial for example

 

[Audie]

"Absolute proof" was almost like, you know,
a absolute giveaway.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

All of the above requires assumptions that are not based on the present knowledge of science, and from the perspective of a biased religious layman agenda. First, science does not prove things, and it falsifies hypothesis and theories. Claim of 'absolute proof' is a foolish canard beyond belief. Second, by far the majority of the scientists in the field of physics and cosmology do not share your layman view. Third, beyond the first few planc second of out universe no one theory of origins of our universe has been determined to the one accepted hypothesis to explain the origin of our universe. Fourth, the nature of the possible singularity and how it is formed is theoretical, and not determined by objective verifiable evidence. Fifth, there is absolutely no evidence for an absolute beginning of our universe. Sixth, no form of ID hypothesis is remotely proposed by legitimate science.

. . . more to follow . . .

 

[leroy]

1/ actually there is evidence that there might be other universes. In fact here is more evidence for multiple universes than there is for a single universe. See the bruising on the CMB and the corresponding volumes of our universe moving contrary to general universal expansion.

2/ what?

3/ no they wouldn't require any fine tuning and there is no evidence of fine-tuning, but much evidence of randomness. See the sloan digital sky survey.

4/ no they dont, please provide evidence for your claim

5/ total misunderstanding of penrose and more relevantly, lee smolin et al.

Until creationist can comprehend cosmology without making a total hash of it as you have done then cosmologists (not atheists) have nothing to worry about with the creationist claim "d'oh i dont understand so god poofed the universe out of nothing using god magic"

This thread direct critique for those who grant that the universe is finally tuned for the existence of life and that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation than design. If this doesn't represents you, then this is not for you.

1 ok there are some bits of evidence for a multiverse, but is still a highly speculative hypothesis

2 well the hypothesis is adhoc, anyone can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any hard question ......

3 there is nothing controversial this statement, eternal inflation requires lower entropy, string theory exactly 11 dimensions, these are all layers of additional fine tuning. Feel free to provide a multiverse model that doesn't require extra fine tuning.

4 if there are potentially infinite universes some of this universes would have very intelligent beings

Some of them will create artifitial universes (ether real universes or simulations)

A single civilization would create many artifitial universes

Artifitial life permiting universes would be more common than natural ourring universes

Therefore it would be more likely that we live in an artificial universe created by inteligent designers.

Which if this claims do you find controversial?

5 justify your asertion .


....
Nobody is saying that you most conclude inteligent design, all you have to do is admit that multiverse hypothesis is a worst explanation than design .......you might have some other explanation

 

[leroy]

All of the above requires assumptions that are not based on the present knowledge of science, and from the perspective of a biased religious layman agenda. First, science does not prove things, and it falsifies hypothesis and theories. Claim of 'absolute proof' is a foolish canard beyond belief. Second, by far the majority of the scientists in the field of physics and cosmology do not share your layman view. Third, beyond the first few planc second of out universe no one theory of origins of our universe has been determined to the one accepted hypothesis to explain the origin of our universe. Fourth, the nature of the possible singularity and how it is formed is theoretical, and not determined by objective verifiable evidence. Fifth, there is absolutely no evidence for an absolute beginning of our universe. Sixth, no form of ID hypothesis is remotely proposed by legitimate science.

. . . more to follow . . .

1 The multiverse hypothesis leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" due to the Boltzmann brain paradox

2 if a hypothesis leads a redoctio ad absurdum then the hypothesis has been falsified

3 therefore the multiverse hypothesis has been falsified as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

4 nobody has falsified inteligent design

5 therefore inteligent design is a better explanation for the fine tuning than multiverse hypothesis


Which of this 5 points do you disagree with and why?

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread direct critique for those who grant that the universe is finally tuned for the existence of life and that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation than design. If this doesn't represents you, then this is not for you.

The problem remains fine tuning and the various ID hypothesis totally lack any falsifiable scientific basis.

1 ok there are some bits of evidence for a multiverse, but is still a highly speculative hypothesis

You need to reflect more the actual view of contemporary science to give a coherent and realistic dialogue, and avoid random layman assumptions based on a religious agenda. The layman's view is highly flawed concerning any of the different possible hypothesis proposed in real science.

2 well the hypothesis is adhoc, anyone can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any hard question ......

This is not the purpose nor the basis of the multiverse hypothesis.

3 there is nothing controversial this statement, eternal inflation requires lower entropy, string theory exactly 11 dimensions, these are all layers of additional fine tuning. Feel free to provide a multiverse model that doesn't require extra fine tuning.

Non of the proposed hypothesis nor models of the origins of our universe require 'fine tuning.' The hypothesis of 'fine tuning' is not falsifiable using legitimate science.

4 if there are potentially infinite universes some of this universes would have very intelligent beings.

Some of the universes could [possibly] have very intelligent beings.

Some of them will create artifitial universes (ether real universes or simulations).

A single civilization would create many artifitial universes

Artifitial life permiting universes would be more common than natural ourring universes

Therefore it would be more likely that we live in an artificial universe created by inteligent designers.

Which if this claims do you find controversial?

5 justify your asertion .

All of the above. There is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor objective verifiable evidence for any of the above. Careful of 'arguing from ignorance' and requiring others to prove the 'negative,' which are fallacies, and simple atrocious logic.

....
Nobody is saying that you most conclude intelligent design, all you have to do is admit that multiverse hypothesis is a worst explanation than design .......you might have some other explanation

The present view of many if not most physicists and cosmologists is that the multiverse is the most likely scenario.

Intelligent Design in any form is the least likely alternative based on science.

 

[Cacotopia]

You lost me at fine tuning, since...no atheist I know including me, has ever said that?

Also 99.9999999% of the universe can kill you.

Also when you have only one example of life, life that "fine tuned" itself to live on this particular rock and no where else via evolution, that fine tuned theory isn't applicable no mo'.

Let's take that a little further, even when you take species on one part of the planet and move them to another part of the planet, they either decimate the local population or get wiped out in short order.

This fine tuned nonsense needs to go.

 

[Cacotopia]

I don't know how you kooks keep the faith in this intelligent design bobbledeegook when there are zero facts to support it.

 

[David T]

Do you know what a hypothesis is? It is an unproven explanation of a phenomena, so atheists / naturalists consider the possibility of a multiverse but it is far, far from proven.
To then throw Intelligent Design into the same sentence is crazy, ID has been thoroughly debunked as evolution is proven, it is a theory.

I might say amen right here. Bad science and bad religion seem compatible. They both exist in a virtual reality with divergent explanations. They agree on the general idea they just disagree on the details is all. Sort of like Calvin vs Wesley in religion!

 

[shunyadragon]

1 The multiverse hypothesis leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" due to the Boltzmann brain paradox

2 if a hypothesis leads a redoctio ad absurdum then the hypothesis has been falsified.

The scientific hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe do not lead to reductio ad assurdum. Scientific hypothesis are not based on logical structured arguments. You grossly misusing science and logic. Butchery with a dull butter knife.
The Boltzman brain paradox has absolutely nothing to do with the various hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe.

I see no scientific references to justify your absurd argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity"). You need to refer to a legitimate science foundation for your argument and not a warped logic based on a layman's religious agenda.

From:Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.

3 therefore the multiverse hypothesis has been falsified as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

The multiverse hypothesis does not propose nor has anything to do with the none scientific 'fine tuning hypothesis.

4 nobody has falsified intelligent design.

True, because it does not represent a falsifiable hypothesis. Again, please do not use the atrocious 'argument from ignorance' and demanding to prove the negative.

5 therefore inteligent design is a better explanation for the fine tuning than multiverse hypothesis


Which of this 5 points do you disagree with and why?

All of the above. Intelligent Design in any form, nor 'fine tuning' are falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

 

[sayak83]

Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

Some points for clarifying:

A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….

Here is a devastating objection:

5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....

Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

Multiverse is a prediction of the very successful inflationary universe theory. There will be significant constraints on the possible physics that can occur in any of these universes that stabilize out of the inflationary region. We don't know what they are and it will take significant research over a long time to find out. However those constraints are very likely to naturally eliminate things like Boltzman brain and non-uniform physics type of stuff. Scientists will find out what's what over time.

 

[Cacotopia]

Do you know what a hypothesis is? It is an unproven explanation of a phenomena, so atheists / naturalists consider the possibility of a multiverse but it is far, far from proven.
To then throw Intelligent Design into the same sentence is crazy, ID has been thoroughly debunked as evolution is proven, it is a theory.

Wait for it: "But evolution is only a theory" comment to happen.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You don't understand the concept of proof.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Also 99.9999999% of the universe can kill you.

This fine tuned nonsense needs to go.

Good point, and agreed.

 

[ChristineM]

This thread direct critique for those who grant that the universe is finally tuned for the existence of life and that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation than design. If this doesn't represents you, then this is not for you.

1 ok there are some bits of evidence for a multiverse, but is still a highly speculative hypothesis

2 well the hypothesis is adhoc, anyone can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any hard question ......

3 there is nothing controversial this statement, eternal inflation requires lower entropy, string theory exactly 11 dimensions, these are all layers of additional fine tuning. Feel free to provide a multiverse model that doesn't require extra fine tuning.

4 if there are potentially infinite universes some of this universes would have very intelligent beings

Some of them will create artifitial universes (ether real universes or simulations)

A single civilization would create many artifitial universes

Artifitial life permiting universes would be more common than natural ourring universes

Therefore it would be more likely that we live in an artificial universe created by inteligent designers.

Which if this claims do you find controversial?

5 justify your asertion .


....
Nobody is saying that you most conclude inteligent design, all you have to do is admit that multiverse hypothesis is a worst explanation than design .......you might have some other explanation

If you want to use guesswork and godmagic to claim the universe is whatever then yes its for me to refute.

1. all hypothesis regarding the creation of the universe are speculative. Some are backed up by maths, some by physical evidence. None require godmagic

2. Your evidence of this claim?

3. First, prove eternal anything. Have you looked up the meaning of entropy? Superstring theory required 10 dimensions, M theory 11, bosonic strings theorys 26.

Fine tuned? Chaos?

A chaotic universe

Feel free to provide evidence of fine tuning.

4. You appear to be contradicting yourself, however possibly other universes exist. But justify your assertion regarding life creating universes.

5. Lee Smolin's articles on arXiv

The multiverse hypothesis has far more going for it than ID ever had, it has more going for it than some of the other hypothesis.
The id idea has nothing going for it other than the imagination of a few scientifically lacking creationists and past its use by date many decades ago.
All you have to do is be honest and admit the ID idea is just an excuse for people who cant cope with the fact no evidence of a designer is required or has been evidenced.