Absolute proof against the multiverse

[shunyadragon]

As I said before, your straw man understanding of FT is not falsifiable. But the actual concept is scientific falsifiable and widely accepted by scientist, I already provided sources.

No sources provided and no it is not falsifiable,

Still waiting . . .

What is lacking is objective verifiable evidence for FT.

 

[leroy]

No sources provided and no it is not falsifiable,

Still waiting . . .

What is lacking is objective verifiable evidence for FT.

There is a lack of verifiable evidence for what you personally call FT.

What scientists call FT is scientific, verifiable, falsifiable and widely accepted as a fact.

source:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf

The Fine Tuning Ques)on “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists”, writes Paul Davis [3], “that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life”. Similarly, Stephen Hawking has noted: The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron [fine structure constant] and the ra.o of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life [4]. Another crucial point is ar.culated by Alexei Tsvelik [5]: [since] the number of exis.ng life-imposing condi.ons by far exceeds the number of constants, their fulfillment could not be achieved by fine tuning of these constants and required also the right choice of the fundamental principles of physical laws.

If you what to assert that Paul Davis and Stephen Hawking are wrong, feel free to disagree with them, and feel free to open a new thread where you explain why are they wrong.

This thread is for those who grant the FT of the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a lack of verifiable evidence for what you personally call FT.

What scientists call FT is scientific, verifiable, falsifiable and widely accepted as a fact.

source:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf


If you what to assert that Paul Davis and Stephen Hawking are wrong, feel free to disagree with them, and feel free to open a new thread where you explain why are they wrong.

This thread is for those who grant the FT of the universe.

This requires philosophical assumptions and fine tuning is not falsifiable. Your source doe not present a falsifiable thesis. All it does is say that 'Our universe appears fine tuned, therefore it is most likely fine tuned.'

It is also unknown what the possible range of values are possible for different possible universes. It is possible that there are many different and possible that they are all similar.

 

[leroy]

This requires philosophical assumptions and fine tuning is not falsifiable. Your source doe not present a falsifiable thesis. All it does is say that 'Our universe appears fine tuned, therefore it is most likely fine tuned.'

All science requires philosophical assumptions; by your logic we should reject all science.

The FT is falsifiable, for example if you show that life as we know it, would be possible even if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high, you would show that the low initial entropy of the universe is not required and therefore not FT. Do the same with other forces like and constants, like the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, weak and strong nuclear forces, etc. and the argument would be falsified.


The fundamental problem is that you don’t understand the concept of FT and you don’t seem to be interested in understand it.

 

[shunyadragon]

All science requires philosophical assumptions; by your logic we should reject all science.

The FT is falsifiable, for example if you show that life as we know it, would be possible even if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high, you would show that the low initial entropy of the universe is not required and therefore not FT. Do the same with other forces like and constants, like the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, weak and strong nuclear forces, etc. and the argument would be falsified.

Again the above is dependent on IF statements, and the IF statements cannot be falsified,

The fundamental problem is that you don’t understand the concept of FT and you don’t seem to be interested in understand it.

I understand it very well in the diffeent possible configurations of the claims from the Divine to the alien,

 

[shunyadragon]

Again the above is dependent on IF statements, and the IF statements cannot be falsified,

Actually no. Science only requires one assumption, and that is Universalism, and it is tested ever time the predictability of a theory and hypothesis is tested.

I understand it very well in the different possible configurations of the claims from the Divine to the alien.

I already listed the detailed objections to FI, and you failed to respond.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

What is exactly meant by "fine-tuning"?

Actually there is no fine tuning.

Everything is in a state of flux whereas you only have periods of stability to which I think you're referred to as "fine tuning" and periods of chaos for which the allegedly "fine-tuned" object , organism , or system is going to break apart eventually and no longer be what it once was .

 

[leroy]

Again the above is dependent on IF statements, and the IF statements cannot be falsified,
,

Well why not? Justify your assertion why are Counterfactual conditionals (or “IF” statements as you call them) unfalsifiable?

One can say “I was late because there was traffic IF there would have not been traffic I wouldn’t be late.


The statement is valid and falsifiable even though it contains an “IF” one in principle can prove (or disprove) with a high degree of certainty that without traffic you would have arrived on time.

Not to mention that I already told you what would falsify the FT assumption.

from wikipedia

"The study of counterfactual speculation (if statements as you call them) has increasingly engaged the interest of scholars in a wide range of domains such as philosophy,[3] human geography, psychology,[4] cognitive psychology,[5] history,[6] political science,[7] economics,[8]social psychology,[9] law,[10] organizational theory,[11] marketing,[12] and epidemiology.[13]"

By you logic we most reject all those areas of knowledge, just because you don’t like counterfactuals (or IF statements as you call them)

 

[QuestioningMind]

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 are two glaring errors with your argument.

Foremost is the fact that you haven't demonstrated that the universe is in any way 'finely tuned'. You are the water in a puddle after a storm declaring that the indentation in the ground where you reside HAD to have been finely tuned in order to accommodate you so perfectly, when in reality it was the water that adapted to accommodate the indentation in the ground.

Second, you declare that sufficiently advanced civilizations will have created artificial universes, yet again you've offered zero evidence that any civilization regardless of how advanced will have the ability to do so. Of course it's POSSIBLE that they MIGHT... but that's hardly evidence.

 

[leroy]

Actually no. Science only requires one assumption, and that is Universalism,

Science assumes that you exist, that there is a physical world, that the tools (telescopes, microscopes, test tubes etc..) exist, that your brain is reliable etc. all those are philosophical assumptions that you make before doing any experiment.

 

[leroy]

What is exactly meant by "fine-tuning"?
.

source Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood

 

[exchemist]

That is the point; nobody would argue that the thermometer shows that temperature by chance. The fact that the thermometer shows exactly the temperature that we observe implies that someone calibrated the thermometer in such a way that it would produce a combination of numbers that corresponds to the temperature.


Of all the values that a thermometer could have shown it happened to show a value that corresponds to the actual temperature, this is obviously an example of fine tuning, and design would be the best explanation.

How silly.

 

[leroy]

There are two glaring errors with your argument.

Foremost is the fact that you haven't demonstrated that the universe is in any way 'finely tuned'. You are the water in a puddle after a storm declaring that the indentation in the ground where you reside HAD to have been finely tuned in order to accommodate you so perfectly, when in reality it was the water that adapted to accommodate the indentation in the ground.

Second, you declare that sufficiently advanced civilizations will have created artificial universes, yet again you've offered zero evidence that any civilization regardless of how advanced will have the ability to do so. Of course it's POSSIBLE that they MIGHT... but that's hardly evidence.

1
Sure the argument presupposes fine tuning the thread is for those who grant that the universe is FT. If you don’t grant this asssumtion


2
It is implicit in the multiverse hypothesis according to the theory there is a potentially infinite number of universes which means that everything that is possible (mo matter how unlikely) would happen every once in a while.

It is possible to have intelligent life capable of creating artificial universes (ether actual universes or simulations)

Therefore it follows that some universes would be artifitial.

Since a single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes, these artificial universes would be more abundant than natural occurring universes.

Therefore it would be more likely that we life in an artificial universe.

 

[`mud]

All I see is transparent chalk on an empty blackboard !
a−1 = 16 + ½ × 16 × (16 − 1) = 136 means what ???
Start again with `a` =17...I get lost about there !

 

[exchemist]

sure:

Thanks for this. However a bit of research shows this statement by Davies is contentious and by no means universally accepted. But I do see now why you focus on God (or ID) vs.multiverse.

My objection to the fine tuning argument is an admittedly rather vague and simplistic version of the one deployed far more rigorously in this paper: http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf

 

[leroy]

Thanks for this. However a bit of research shows this statement by Davies is contentious and by no means universally accepted. But I do see now why you focus on God (or ID) vs.multiverse.

My objection to the fine tuning argument is an admittedly rather vague and simplistic version of the one deployed far more rigorously in this paper: http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf

Basically what the paper states is that the universe is FT because that is the way things are (no explanation required)


Is that your view?

 

[exchemist]

Basically what the paper states is that the universe is FT because that is the way things are (no explanation required)


Is that your view?

I think it is simply saying the universal constants have the values they do because they just do. As I read it, it is not agreeing that anything is "fine-tuned". To use that phrase is tendentious, as it implies (a ) that the constants could have had other values, and ( b ), that their actual observed values have therefore been "tuned" by deliberate agency of some unspecified sort. There is no evidence for either proposition.

In science there are plenty of things that "just are". The scientific view of the physical world has no trouble with that. It is only those of a metaphysical cast of mind who try to read significance into everything that is observed to be the case. This is admittedly a natural human tendency and has served mankind well, in that pushing for deeper explanations has yielded great results in the past. However in my view those successes do not entitle us to assume that everything has an explanation.

I say all this with some regret, as I should be delighted to see confirmation of God in the physical world, but I simply do not think it is there in any objective sense. People like me do find the exquisite order in nature to be suggestive of a creator of some kind, but this is a subjective feeling or emotion and not a rationally defensible scientific hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

I say all this with some regret, as I should be delighted to see confirmation of God in the physical world, but I simply do not think it is there in any objective sense. People like me do find the exquisite order in nature to be suggestive of a creator of some kind, but this is a subjective feeling or emotion and not a rationally defensible scientific hypothesis.

It is true that humans have a natural tendency of observing illusory patterns; we tend to see faces in the clouds, vigen marry in the toasted bread, Elmo in cookies etc.

However there are objective ways of determining if a pattern is real or illusory.

For example we can prove objectively that the entropy of the universe is low (and was lower in the past) we can prove that life as we know it could have not exist in a universe with high entropy and we can prove objectively that a state of high entropy is statistically more probable than a state with low entropy.

Or to put it this way, of all the macro states in which energy and matter can exist only a small minority of these states has low entropy, and life can only exist in universes with low entropy.

These are testable and verifiable statements, the pattern is objectively there. Or in any case it would be possible to falsify that assertion.

 

[exchemist]

It is true that humans have a natural tendency of observing illusory patterns; we tend to see faces in the clouds, vigen marry in the toasted bread, Elmo in cookies etc.

However there are objective ways of determining if a pattern is real or illusory.

For example we can prove objectively that the entropy of the universe is low (and was lower in the past) we can prove that life as we know it could have not exist in a universe with high entropy and we can prove objectively that a state of high entropy is statistically more probable than a state with low entropy.

Or to put it this way, of all the macro states in which energy and matter can exist only a small minority of these states has low entropy, and life can only exist in universes with low entropy.

These are testable and verifiable statements, the pattern is objectively there. Or in any case it would be possible to falsify that assertion.

There are a lot of highly dubious statements here.

How can we "prove" the entropy of the universe is "low"? Low compared to what?

How can we "prove" that life as we know it could not exist in a universe of "high" entropy?

I struggle to see what these assertions can mean, let alone how they could be tested. Can you explain?

 

[Sir Doom]

1
Sure the argument presupposes fine tuning the thread is for those who grant that the universe is FT. If you don’t grant this asssumtion


2
It is implicit in the multiverse hypothesis according to the theory there is a potentially infinite number of universes which means that everything that is possible (mo matter how unlikely) would happen every once in a while.

I don't believe that is implicit, but I believe your point is demonstrated regardless (because some of the below is not unlikely at all) so I will leave that aside.

It is possible to have intelligent life capable of creating artificial universes (ether actual universes or simulations)

Simulations exist demonstrably within this universe. So, yes on simulations, but no on 'actual'. That is an incredible stretch of the term 'possible'. We don't really know how this one came to be, how could we suggest that it might be an artificially reproducible phenomenon? Science fiction often speaks of 'reversing gravity' but there is nothing about gravity that suggests that is a possibility, thus it is not necessarily on the list of possible things that might exist in other universes (or ours for that matter).

Therefore it follows that some universes would be artifitial.

Yes, all of the simulations. Any others? Well, who can say?

Since a single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes, these artificial universes would be more abundant than natural occurring universes.

Granted. Unless, it was incredibly difficult, time or resource consuming, economically deficit, dangerous, immoral, irresponsible or any otherwise terrible idea in which case the intelligence simply doesn't do it regardless of how possible it is. Of course we don't even know if it's possible, so who can say what 'making an actual universe' does to the ones that are here already? It could be monumentally catastrophic and typically result in the destruction if the 'parent' universe, for example. What might that do to what's 'possible'?

Therefore it would be more likely that we life in an artificial universe.

Also, granted. IF I concede that the universe is 'fine-tuned' AND I concede to 'artificial actual universes' being possible AND I concede that this universe IS NOT a simulation THEN.

That's a lot of IFs.

Anyway, a few questions:

A: What does a 'roughly tuned' universe look like?

1: What does an 'untuned' universe look like?

And finally: Please tell me the difference between 'artificial' and 'simulated'. That's one I really don't get. Wouldn't the fact that it's artificial also classify it immediately as a simulation?