A
Al_Moritz
Guest
You can say that loudly. Naturalism is totally faith-based.Metaphysical naturalism is a faith based ideology.
You can say that loudly. Naturalism is totally faith-based.Metaphysical naturalism is a faith based ideology.
Nor has it ever been explained precisely what “nature” is. It is a nebulous term which seems to change to cover new discoveries, i.e.everything a naturalist feels compelled to believe - in addition to what s/he wants to believe!You can say that loudly. Naturalism is totally faith-based.
From any point of view! If the universe is improbable so is everything else in the universe. All probabilities in the universe become no more than degrees of improbability!That assumption rules out all probability estimates in
If you believe it is not meaningful to consider the probability of the universe as a whole you imply that it must exist simply because it exists! You have faith in physical necessity - without justification…However, I do not think it is meaningful to consider the probability of the universe as a whole, so all we are left with is the probability of things within the universe.
*possibilities of universes with physical constants different to our universe - unless it can be explained why certain physical constants are not feasible1. There are **countless **
All that reasoning is fine-ish, but I’d rather describe those possible universes as potentially possible universes.
- There is **one **possibility of a universe with the same physical constants as our universe - unless it can be explained why there is more than one possible universe with the same physical constants
- It is absurd to equate countless with **many **- unless it can be explained whymany possible universes must have the same physical constants
- Therefore our knowledge of the physical constants essential for our form of life is sufficient to know that those conditions are extremely unlikely to be satisfied in all possible universes
- Cosmologists frequently extrapolate from the conditions in our universe as a basis for their theories about this universe in the context of other possible universes
I don’t know what “fine-ish” means but I do know you haven’t refuted my statements!
By the time-honoured method of extrapolation which is constantly used in philosophy and science. We are not entitled to assume that:Given that we don’t know about what caused our own universe, how can we know what other universes might be?
- This is the sole universe
- The features of this universe are necessary
- The features of this universe are immutable
- Knowledge always depends on knowledge of the origin of an entity
We do not know anything for certain (except our mental processes) but we are justified in believing many propositions because of our success in controlling ourselves and our environment. All empirical knowledge is based on probability and the principle of induction.We do not know what is possible.
A “potential possibility” is a pleonasm! It amounts to “a possible possibility” but there are no degrees of possibility, are there? If something is more possible it amounts to being more probable, I should have thought…We can theorise what would happen if x, y, z were different, but this gives us no license to assume that they could actually be different. So they remain potential possibilities.
I have having second thoughts about:
There could be many universes with the same physical constants as our universe but in the absence of information we are entitled to assume there are an immensely greater number of possible universes with different physical constants.*2. There is **one ***possibility of a universe with the same physical constants as our universe - unless it can be explained why there is more than one possible universe with the same physical constants
If we never speculated about possibilities we would never make discoveries or have a true sense of perspective with regard to our existing knowledge. Wisdom consists to some extent in being open-minded…![]()
They may not be used to the rough and tumble of philosophical discussions where everything should be considered…It seems far too many are far too easily offended these days!![]()
Be precise. I think we cannot talk meaningfully about the probability of the universe because we lack the necessary data. I do not think that the universe is the way it is because it can be no other way. That is equally impossible to assert. How can we talk about the probability of the universe knowing nothing of its cause, or if it has a cause?If you believe it is not meaningful to consider the probability of the universe as a whole you imply that it must exist simply because it exists! You have faith in physical necessity - without justification…
Excellent statement from someone handled “Fragile!”It seems far too many are far too easily offended these days!![]()