Inviting Al Moritz to discuss the "fine tune" argument

[tonyrey]

The fine-tuning theory is based on the principle that the laws of nature could be different. If they couldn’t be different there is no reason to believe they are evidence of Design because the argument from improbability collapses! There would be nothing significant about the existence of life in an otherwise hostile universe.

That’s the thin end of the wedge! Why should changes be limited to minute ones?

Also, going back to a prior post. I didn’t know how to interpret this comment of yours:

"
To deny that the world could be different is to subscribe to the theory of physical necessity which is incompatible with Christian belief. It implies that God had to create this world exactly as it is and could not have done otherwise "

What do you mean by " physical necessity ? " Certainly God could have created a different world ( universe ). But in fact He created this one. The fact that He created this one would imply no necessity on the part of God. So teaches St. Thomas. This is not incompatible with Christian belief.

I agree with you because we are both Christians but on this forum we are dealing with non-believers who believe in physical necessity instead of God. That is why the defects of that hypothesis must be exposed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s the thin end of the wedge! Why should changes be limited to minute ones?

I agree with you because we are both Christians but on this forum we are dealing with non-believers who believe in physical necessity instead of God. That is why the defects of that hypothesis must be exposed.

Oh yes, I agree with you. That is why I highly recommend the following accessible and approved source: magisreasonfaith.org/free_dvd.html

Linus2nd

 

[Gricken]

Best active threat right now. Loving the exchange of ideas… now if only I was well versed enough to contribute.

 

[aux1]

And your argument hinges on the unreasonable assumption that the universe’s creation was not a one-off event…

It’s a simple inductive reasoning.

There are very few things in nature which exist in only one instance. We’re on one of multiple planets, which orbits one of multiple stars in galaxy, which is one of many galaxies forming a galaxy group, which is… You get the idea. It’s not much stretch to assume that our universe is not the only one.

Why would (or really “how could”) you assume that the creator of a universe is not intelligent?

Because the total energy of the universe is zero. If there is a creator which can create stuff ex nihilo, then such creator can create a universe with non-zero total energy – by creating the necessary energy. So why would the creator constrain himself to designing a zero-energy universe?

In contrast, a zero-energy universe could be created by a non-intelligent process, namely, quantum fluctuations of vacuum: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

While this does assume that dark energy continues its current trend, it would take trillions of years for this to occur and it would be the local supercluster that is still visible, not just the local group (though the local supercluster does include the local group). Since the supercluster will be visible then, it is probable that the cosmology will still be correct.

No, because the cluster is gravitationally bound so the galaxies which can be observed will not be redshifted, while galaxies which are redshifted will already be beyond the horizon. It’s very difficult to deduce Big Bang without redshift. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-end-of-cosmology

A curious notion.

If we know that future astronomers will not be able to observe redshift, then we must allow a notion that we are also not able to observe some crucial piece of the puzzle.

 

[aux1]

You are also forgetting that an observer is not an objective entity with observable properties but a unique personal subjective state which creates an entire set of explanatory problems of its own which cannot simply be ignored or explained away as a necessary aspect of a habitable universe.

The important thing is that only habitable universes will have observers, others won’t.

Let’s use an analogy. If you take a box of M&Ms, selected red ones, and give these to a child, then the child is going to assume that all M&Ms are red. The child will probably entertain a notion of non-red M&Ms at some point, but it’s immediately going to counter that with “But I’ve never seen green M&Ms!”

Even more so when a child sees only one M&M in its lifetime (which happens to be red). Wouldn’t it be inclined to believe that this red M&M is a truly unique object? Wouldn’t it be inclined to devise ad-hoc explanations, why this one and only M&M is red?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Best active threat right now. Loving the exchange of ideas… now if only I was well versed enough to contribute.

This will help.
magisreasonfaith.org/free_dvd.html

Linus2nd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It’s a simple inductive reasoning.

There are very few things in nature which exist in only one instance. We’re on one of multiple planets, which orbits one of multiple stars in galaxy, which is one of many galaxies forming a galaxy group, which is… You get the idea. It’s not much stretch to assume that our universe is not the only one.

First, I was making a sarcastic remark about your comment. We have no evidence of multiverse (and, by the theory’s own designs, can never have any evidence), but you are assuming that it is true and arguing from that position anyway.

Second, Occam’s razor should make anyone run away from multiverse theory.

Because the total energy of the universe is zero. If there is a creator which can create stuff ex nihilo, then such creator can create a universe with non-zero total energy – by creating the necessary energy. So why would the creator constrain himself to designing a zero-energy universe?

Easy: only a zero-energy universe can exist. If there was a negative energy (i.e., gravitational energy exceed mass-energy), then the universe would have collapsed shortly after exploding (if it could have exploded at all). If there was a positive energy, then the universe would have expanded too fast for anything to form.

In contrast, a zero-energy universe could be created by a non-intelligent process, namely, quantum fluctuations of vacuum: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

I see your crude infidels.org and raise you someone who is actually intelligent on the matter: Professor Matt Strassler.

Virtual particles are not fluctuations of vacuum but collisions (perturbations) of electromagnetic fields. Last I checked, a field is certainly something so the whole notion of ‘something from nothing’ is a complete falsehood. Further, the perturbation lasts for something on the order of nanoseconds, not 14 billion years. Virtual “particles” is a lost cause, held on by the uninformed.

No, because the cluster is gravitationally bound so the galaxies which can be observed will not be redshifted, while galaxies which are redshifted will already be beyond the horizon. It’s very difficult to deduce Big Bang without redshift. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-end-of-cosmology

The CMB requires no redshift and confirms the big bang theory. Also, hypervelocity stars ejected from galaxy mergers would be indicators of redshift.

If we know that future astronomers will not be able to observe redshift, then we must allow a notion that we are also not able to observe some crucial piece of the puzzle.

As above, they should be able to detect redshifts of the hypervelocity stars. Those redshifts combined with the CMB ought to lead future astronomers to the big bang theory.

 

[Linux]

First, I was making a sarcastic remark about your comment. We have no evidence of multiverse (and, by the theory’s own designs, can never have any evidence), but you are assuming that it is true and arguing from that position anyway.

Second, Occam’s razor should make anyone run away from multiverse theory.

Why does it matter whether or not there is a multiverse? You still have to arrive at an original ultimate universe from which all other universes are derived. This ultimate universe would also have finely tuned initial conditions. Do you not agree?

 

[tonyrey]

The important thing is that only habitable universes will have observers, others won’t.

Let’s use an analogy. If you take a box of M&Ms, selected red ones, and give these to a child, then the child is going to assume that all M&Ms are red. The child will probably entertain a notion of non-red M&Ms at some point, but it’s immediately going to counter that with “But I’ve never seen green M&Ms!”

Even more so when a child sees only one M&M in its lifetime (which happens to be red). Wouldn’t it be inclined to believe that this red M&M is a truly unique object? Wouldn’t it be inclined to devise ad-hoc explanations, why this one and only M&M is red?

The analogy fails because science allows for the possibility of other universes. There is no evidence that this is the only possible universe. Whether other universes are habitable or not is a red herring! The issue is the (im)probability of life in this universe - without making the flawed assumption that the laws of nature are dictated by physical necessity…

 

[Peter_Plato]

The important thing is that only habitable universes will have observers, others won’t.

Let’s use an analogy. If you take a box of M&Ms, selected red ones, and give these to a child, then the child is going to assume that all M&Ms are red. The child will probably entertain a notion of non-red M&Ms at some point, but it’s immediately going to counter that with “But I’ve never seen green M&Ms!”

Even more so when a child sees only one M&M in its lifetime (which happens to be red). Wouldn’t it be inclined to believe that this red M&M is a truly unique object? Wouldn’t it be inclined to devise ad-hoc explanations, why this one and only M&M is red?

My point is that explaining the universe as habitable is less problematic than explaining the observers. In your example, whether there are only red M&Ms or whether there are green ones is only a minor consideration compared to explaining why the child exists to enjoy either of them in the first place.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Why does it matter whether or not there is a multiverse? You still have to arrive at an original ultimate universe from which all other universes are derived. This ultimate universe would also have finely tuned initial conditions. Do you not agree?

If you pair multiverse theory with a poor understanding of virtual particles, there is no need for an ‘original ultimate universe’ because all of the other universes were ‘created from nothing’ and there is an ‘infinitude of other universes’ so that ‘any possible universe would also have been created’ and that ours is just ‘one of the few possible universes that could sustain life’ (not direct quotes here, just paraphrasing arguments held by proponents of the two theories).

It matters to at least prove a two things:
(1) Multiverse theory is not science (it is not falsifiable)
(2) Multiverse theory requires as much faith in bad ‘science’ as belief in God

I do agree that the only universe is highly tuned for life, but one has to be able to intelligently disarm our opponents weapons, that is what I am trying here.

 

[Linux]

If you pair multiverse theory with a poor understanding of virtual particles, there is no need for an ‘original ultimate universe’ because all of the other universes were ‘created from nothing’ and there is an ‘infinitude of other universes’ so that ‘any possible universe would also have been created’ and that ours is just ‘one of the few possible universes that could sustain life’ (not direct quotes here, just paraphrasing arguments held by proponents of the two theories)…

It certainly would be a poor understanding and a contradiction. At best a mult-iverse simply isn’t required since if everything simply comes out of nothing why not just posit one universe?

And if somebody means to say that there is an actual infinite number of distinct universes as opposed to a potentially infinite number of universes, it ceases to be science and falls into the realm of philosophy. In which case it is bound by the rules of philosophy. Metaphysically speaking, it is impossible to produce an actual distinct number of finite objects that amount to an actually infinite number because there is no distinct finite number that amounts to infinity. You cannot turn finite amounts into infinite amounts, and therefore you cannot reduce an infinite to finite amounts; hence a true actual infinite cannot be a quantity of something. That is to say an infinite cannot be the sum total of distinct objects. An actual infinite is not a quantity.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It certainly would be a poor understanding and a contradiction. At best a mult-iverse simply isn’t required since if everything simply comes out of nothing why not just posit one universe?

Occam’s razor would certainly imply that there is a single universe.

And if somebody means to say that there is an actual infinite number of distinct universes as opposed to a potentially infinite number of universes, it ceases to be science and falls into the realm of philosophy. In which case it is bound by the rules of philosophy. Metaphysically speaking, it is impossible to produce an actual distinct number of finite objects that amount to an actually infinite number because there is no distinct finite number that amounts to infinity. You cannot turn finite amounts into infinite amounts, and therefore you cannot reduce an infinite to finite amounts; hence a true actual infinite cannot be a quantity of something. That is to say an infinite cannot be the sum total of distinct objects. An actual infinite is not a quantity.

I think proponents of multiverse do not mean either an actual infinity or a potential infinity; I think they are using ‘infinity’ to mean ‘a bigger number than you can imagine.’

 

[cornbread_r2]

Occam’s razor would certainly imply that there is a single universe.

…]

When some theists are asked why a perfect, self-sufficient God would need to create a universe at all, they sometimes assert that God doesn’t “need” to create, but that creating is actually just part of God’s nature, in the same way that love, truth and goodness are is sometimes referred to as parts of God’s nature. If that’s true, then is there any theological reason why God couldn’t create more than one universe? Additionally, if God is omnipotent, is there any reason why he couldn’t create an actual infinite number of universes? I understand that the answers won’t necessarily impact the fine-tuning question, but I wanted to get an opinion while the thread was still in the “throat-clearing” stage. Thanks in advance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The important thing is that only habitable universes will have observers, others won’t.

Let’s use an analogy. If you take a box of M&Ms, selected red ones, and give these to a child, then the child is going to assume that all M&Ms are red. The child will probably entertain a notion of non-red M&Ms at some point, but it’s immediately going to counter that with “But I’ve never seen green M&Ms!”

Even more so when a child sees only one M&M in its lifetime (which happens to be red). Wouldn’t it be inclined to believe that this red M&M is a truly unique object? Wouldn’t it be inclined to devise ad-hoc explanations, why this one and only M&M is red?

Another point about habitable universes was, I believe, made by Paul Davies. He observed that even if a multiverse scenario was true, it would be overwhelmingly more probable that we would find ourselves, as observers, in a far smaller and less complex universe than we actually experience. There is no reason to think that this observable universe is the only one capable of spawning observers.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

When some theists are asked why a perfect, self-sufficient God would need to create a universe at all, they sometimes assert that God doesn’t “need” to create, but that creating is actually just part of God’s nature, in the same way that love, truth and goodness are is sometimes referred to as parts of God’s nature. If that’s true, then is there any theological reason why God couldn’t create more than one universe? Additionally, if God is omnipotent, is there any reason why he couldn’t create an actual infinite number of universes? I understand that the answers won’t necessarily impact the fine-tuning question, but I wanted to get an opinion while the thread was still in the “throat-clearing” stage. Thanks in advance.

I do not know that there is an explicit theological reason as to why God would create a single universe, but I suppose it possibly could be argued that because God is immanent in the universe because it is His power that sustains the universe that there could be only a single universe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I do not know that there is an explicit theological reason as to why God would create a single universe, but I suppose it possibly could be argued that because God is immanent in the universe because it is His power that sustains the universe that there could be only a single universe.

St. Thomas argued against this possibility ( S.T., Part 1, Q. 47, a. 3 ). Thus :

" I answer that, The distinction of things has been ascribed to many causes. For some attributed the distinction to matter, either by itself or with the agent. Democritus, for instance, and all the ancient natural philosophers, who admitted no cause but matter, attributed it to matter alone; and in their opinion the distinction of things comes from chance according to the movement of matter. Anaxagoras, however, attributed the distinction and multitude of things to matter and to the agent together; and he said that the intellect distinguishes things by extracting what is mixed up in matter.

But this cannot stand, for two reasons.

First, because, as was shown above (Question 44, Article 2), even matter itself was created by God. Hence we must reduce whatever distinction comes from matter to a higher cause.

Secondly, because matter is for the sake of the form, and not the form for the matter, and the distinction of things comes from their proper forms. Therefore the distinction of things is not on account of the matter; but rather, on the contrary, created matter is formless, in order that it may be accommodated to different forms.

Others have attributed the distinction of things to secondary agents, as did Avicenna, who said that God by understanding Himself, produced the first intelligence; in which, forasmuch as it was not its own being, there is necessarily composition of potentiality and act, as will appear later (50, 3). And so the first intelligence, inasmuch as it understood the first cause, produced the second intelligence; and in so far as it understood itself as in potentiality it produced the heavenly body, which causes movement, and inasmuch as it understood itself as having actuality it produced the soul of the heavens.

But this opinion cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it was shown above (Question 45, Article 5) that to create belongs to God alone, and hence what can be caused only by creation is produced by God alone–viz. all those things which are not subject to generation and corruption. Secondly, because, according to this opinion, the universality of things would not proceed from the intention of the first agent, but from the concurrence of many active causes; and such an effect we can describe only as being produced by chance. Therefore, the perfection of the universe, which consists of the diversity of things, would thus be a thing of chance, which is impossible.

Hence we must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures, that what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another. For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided and hence the whole universe together participates the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.

And because the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things, therefore Moses said that things are made distinct by the word of God, which is the concept of His wisdom; and this is what we read in Genesis 1:3-4: “God said: Be light made . . . And He divided the light from the darkness.”

Reply to Objection 1. The natural agent acts by the form which makes it what it is, and which is only one in one thing; and therefore its effect is one only. But the voluntary agent, such as God is, as was shown above (Question 19, Article 4), acts by an intellectual form. Since, therefore, it is not against God’s unity and simplicity to understand many things, as was shown above (Question 15, Article 2), it follows that, although He is one, He can make many things.

Reply to Objection 2. This reason would apply to the representation which reflects the exemplar perfectly, and which is multiplied by reason of matter only; hence the uncreated image, which is perfect, is only one. But no creature represents the first exemplar perfectly, which is the divine essence; and, therefore, it can be represented by many things. Still, according as ideas are called exemplars, the plurality of ideas corresponds in the divine mind to the plurality of things.

Reply to Objection 3. In speculative things the medium of demonstration, which demonstrates the conclusion perfectly, is one only; whereas probable means of proof are many. Likewise when operation is concerned, if the means be equal, so to speak, to the end, one only is sufficient. But the creature is not such a means to its end, which is God; and hence the multiplication of creatures is necessary. "

So, while it would be illogical to speak of such a possibility, the Catholic Church has no teaching specifically addressing the possibility.

But it is a pointless speculation for three reasons. We live in this world and this is what has to be accounted for. Secondly, we could never know if such a world actually existed. Thirdly, the suggestion that such is the case merely pushes the goal posts further along and this cannot go on to infinity. At some point mere existence of material and/or created being has to be accounted for.

Linus2nd

 

[cornbread_r2]

I do not know that there is an explicit theological reason as to why God would create a single universe, but I suppose it possibly could be argued that because God is immanent in the universe because it is His power that sustains the universe that there could be only a single universe.

Thanks for responding. I don’t understand how God’s immanence could be limited and couldn’t extend to other created universes.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for responding. I don’t understand how God’s immanence could be limited and couldn’t extend to other created universes.

See my post # 95

Having said that, I don’t think the Church has a specific teaching denying the possibility. But on a practical level, what difference would it make, we could never know about it? Science has its limitations and one of them is we can never know whether God has indeed created other universes. So it is just a lot of wasted energy and time to speculate about these things. It makes good science fiction and that is about it. Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

I have a bad feeling about this…

but I am still an incurable optimist. Al has not answered my simple little question for about 3 days now, even though I saw him being logged on to the site (that little green light…). One can only hope that he is busy in RL (real life), and eventually he will respond. Of course a short post of

I’ll be back…

would have been appreciated, but what the heck . It would be fun to talk to a real scientist, who understands the principles of science.