Multiverse intelligently designed.

Post Reply New Topic

Canned comment is an interesting replacement statement for 'referenced'. I put the comment there and then placed the reference of where I got it from, if you have a problem with that then anything academic must send you into a rage of cans.

You then discourse without saying anything tangiable about the subject. Pointing out the inconsistencies in a newsletter is not exactly suprising, its a newsletter. If however you would like to read Dr. Craig's academic papers on the teleological argument.

"The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle." In The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays, pp. 127-153. Edited by Wm. L. Craig and M. McLeod. Problems in Contemporary Philosophy 24. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990.

Available here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5179

"Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes" Philosophia Christi (Summer 2009), 232-238.

Available here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=7289

It seems from a reading of your post that you just can't accept that Christian philosophy should be considered credible. Most of what you said is just a massive genetic fallacy.

From commonsenseatheism:

What William Lane Craig is right about: (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=538)

'Christian philosophy has experienced a renaissance, and has contributed to genuine progress in philosophy'
'As Craig says, Christian philosophers once again “have a seat at the table.”'

Also FYI please re-read my last post I did not claim that Craig was a middle of the road commentator I claimed that Paul Davies and Feeman Dyson were.

I was actually thinking of a multiverse as envisioned within the context of M-Theory.

Last edited by Jono on 07 Nov 2011, 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Vilenkin's argument was also taken out of context. Here's the e-print of the original paper regarding the argument spoken about on that site:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Hi 91,

The subject is "multiverse intelligently designed", your parrot post of Craig introduced the off subject elements. Both "multiverse" and "intelligently designed" are parts of what is being contested, and you seem to be counter the "multiverse" and supportive of "intelligently designed", while I presently tend to entertain the "multiverse" and to prefer "ordered pattern" over "intelligently designed". You should not hold science being only "tangiable" (tangential???, as tangible means palpable) to the proposed theory in "multiverse theory", while holding Teleological Arguments not tangential.

It is unfortunate that you find the book "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" by William Lane Craig (one of the search results also for "Ludwig Boltzmann’s appeal to a multiverse") as of just a newsletter of inconsistencies. You must learn the logic of polemics better as based on valid research instead of quick wit prejudice.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ludwi ... =bks&tbo=1

Substituting "multiverse" for "Many Worlds Hypothesis" is the "magic key" for revealing the base of only old failed arguments against such, presented as "New, and Improved!! !" fruitless hash of old. Sorta like relabeling "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" by nothing more than a substitution of names, and trying to convince everyone that a worn-out and old, disproved contention has regained "truth" with a name change.

You have labeled the same-ole, same-ole, as "'Christian philosophy has experienced a renaissance, and has contributed to genuine progress in philosophy' 'As Craig says, Christian philosophers once again “have a seat at the table.”'"

The "ole argument" is much more simple as "Boltzmann's Brain Paradox", but the glitzy new labels from Mr. Craig adds to "The Pet Rock" value of another Hula-Hoop Fad that might make a profit for legions of God Pushers after a quick buck through another "renaissance" carnival of magic belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Your citing "genetic" out of thin air reeks of something not of solid logic or science. Do you always parrot the word whenever nothing else works much at all? (Did you mean "generic", but this is at least the second such posting listing "genetic" for some unknown reason about the Multiverse Theory?).

The "middle-of-the-road" refers to where you represented yourself being, while you appear to me as being a next to absolute pro-Craig supporter, and as if you are following instructions or guidelines to cite enough of the opposition to improperly maintain a facade of being impartial.

Besides his frequent mistakes, the initial factors I don't feel comfortable with is Craig's showmanship polemics, along with that he goes for the "distinguished figure" of the crowd's "spirit", instead of the direct subject matter at hand sans trendy slogans. He has that "Garner Ted Armstrong" aura in his staged presentations, but with more blind belief, careless logic, and sloppy "facts".

Tadzio

I am familiar with Alexender Vilenkin's statement relating to how philosophy deals with his findings. Vilenkin is a fantastic physicist but that does not mean that he a monopoly over the interpretation of the data that he put forward. This back and fourth between Vilenkin and several philosophers is unfortunate in that Vilenkin chose to respond to academic papers by posting in the blogosphere. It is also worth noting that Vilenkin's complaints relate to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which relates to first causes) not to the teleological arugment (which is about fine-tuning). I think you have mistaken what exactly is being discussed between the two parties in that discussion as it has nothing to do with the teleological argument. As a response to what you have raised; it is actually an objection to the Kalam but James Sinclair who holds a masters in Physics from Texas A&M where he specialized in Supersymmetry and Cosmology actually wrote a response to Vilenkin. You can find what he wrote here; http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8629

Here is a slightly cut down and more simple version
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]



M-theory generates a world ensemble. But it does not get rid of the fine tuning. Every universe generated by M-Theory must be 11-dimensional so every universe within the world ensemble would still be subject to values that would support a teleological argument. Further, string theory generates an ensemble of around 10^500 possible universes that would be derivations on the basic underlying values. It is also not necessarily the case that an M-Theory world ensemble would generate enough universes to create a life-permitting universe because the possibility of a life-permitting universe might be less then 10^500; which given the work of Roger Penrose is entirely possible.

@Tadzio

When I read your posts I sometimes have difficulty determining exactly what it is you are saying. Most of your paragraphs are elucidated only to the point where I can sense that you do not like what I am saying. Most of what I can identified is your attempt to claim that theistic philosophy is more form than substance but you don't really give me any reason to think that this is the case. Being a theist does not make one incapable of producing a logical argument nor does being an atheist guarantee one that skill.

Further, I never attempted to portray myself as middle-of-the-road with regards to the teleological argument. I think the argument is sound. What I did do is attempt, where possible, to use sources who were not also apologists; which is justifiable given your blatant labeling of them as wrong on that basis alone.

Forget the "Multiverse", this is Craig's Teleology, OR ELSE!! !!

Hi 91,

You have again sought protection behind the absurdity of a God's "fine tuning", when any God with creative greatness should hit right on the correct channel without all the nonsensical trouble poor mere mortals are subjected to. "Reasonable Faith" is certainly a misnomer, as as it is put forth by Craig, it is not reasonable, and the Gods must have twisted the knob off the tuner out of frustrated carelessness and ineptitude. The rant of Craig's Teleological Cabbage Patch Dolls will continue until the recycling truck goes by again.

Meanwhile, blowing away the tiresome God dust, a humorous and fairly easy to understand article without the frequent repeat of the dreaded word of "re-normalization" used for forming finite ratios from ratios of infinities (since a cockroach might mess up the fine-tuned, less than perfect God tuner) is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/scien ... ehboGYis2A

Tadzio

According to the heisenburg uncertainty principle, god is an illiterate banana.

This depends, however, on the assumption that "all things are possible." That is not axiomatic.

If anything is possible in the multiverse theory, then in one subset of the multiverses, the multiverse theory is wrong.

The wording, and word usage, becomes more important when "Plain English" idea limits are surpassed. The multiverse theory includes the infinite repetition of all possible sequences, not of any impossible sequence. The notion of differences of frequency of possible sequences become easily confused too, but a sequence with a one out of 2 frequency compared to a sequence with a one out of 100 Million frequency, will retain the same "ratio in infinities" (i.e., if a random sample of a few trillion could be taken, "ideal" coin flips will be heads about half the time in the sample, while winning with one set of "lucky numbers" in "ideal" big lotteries will be about once out of each 100 Million in the sample). Infinite repetition, per se, doesn't "create", or "allow", the impossible, as in a lottery that requires the choice of 5 numbers from the integer set of the ordinal 56 numbers of possible choices, infinite repetition doesn't "magically" give the opportunity to pick the number "70" as one of the 5 chosen numbers. Sam Loyd's 15 square puzzle isn't "magically" solved either.

The quantum notion of "random", and principles similar to Heisenberg's Uncertainty, is basically different from "frequencies of occurrences", a deceptively "simple" example is Crookes Radiometer. Statistical Mechanics "explains" it with statistics, but while the number of molecules involved is large, the number is definitely finite. The statistics gives the frequency of the most frequently observed results, but the explanations of more absolute counts are lacking, as large number counts can be tried for better designs, but with such large numbers, the explanations have continued to fail to produce argued and/or explained results (Einstein failed too). Two different, near zero, pressures of air, are the ideal(s) for the maximum rate of rotation in otherwise identical situations, but in opposite directions of rotation for the two different air pressures!! !
"http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYS2060/readings/Crooke's%20radiometer%20and%20Otheoscope.pdf"

Tadzio

In all honesty, I've known for quite some time that I was seriously unusual, but I only discovered last week that I have AS. I'm frightened and confused and I've holed myself up in a cheap hotel away from friends and family until I can sort things out a bit. Please forgive me if I say anything inappropriate - I've not had much opportunity to communicate with others like me so I'm a bit unsure of myself.

I've been obsessed for 35 years about understanding the nature of the universe. I'm quite obsessed with being thorough so I spent the first 34 years or so choosing the way I wanted to approach the problem. Then it took about two weeks to unravel the mystery I chose to attack first, namely a proper interpretation of Young's double slit experiment which was required in order to develop an objective, scientifically-based, internally consistent, universal definition of "observer." From there, the pace picked up and I discovered a new scientific framework from which no paradoxes involving our universe arise and which provides an internally consistent framework by which to understand "paradoxical" empirical scientific measurements and observations. My book was published a few months ago. More about my book at another time.

So, here's an observation I want to share with you: I discovered that I have AS and I'm having a really tough time processing it even though every experience of my life makes senses for the very first time. I emerged from near paralysis after a few days to seek out other Aspies with whom I could connect over my obsession with cosmology and cosmogony. I delightedly discover a forum through which I could learn more about the autistic perspectives of philosophy. However, the discussion bears frustratingly similar appearance to discussions on the sites hosted by "normals."

So, I'd like to ask a question and try to introduce some of my perspective into the discussion. First, an assertion: The Universe is completely understandable and I believe that members of this forum are uniquely qualified to "see" its nature, at least if I represent anything remotely resembling normal from the perspective of the Aspie spectrum. I'm really trying to get a grip on who or what I am, and I'm floundering about what steps, if any, to take.

Perhaps we could set aside discussions from which closure is unlikely or implausible, and that resemble discussions relating to the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. (Darn, I know that sounds arrogant and obnoxious but it's about the best I can do right now. It seems better than returning to bed and rocking for a few more hours.)

Let's turn the seemingly unanswerable and enigmatic question of "how we could possibly be here to discuss any of this" around and look at it from a different perspective:

Here's the question: What could be the physical basis for the inevitability of the emergence and sustenance of life in our universe?

Based on my work, it seems like this is a preferable question to ask for the simple reason that it's actually answerable, without the need to invoke empirically unverifiable parallel universes (of either the multiverse or many worlds variety).

I'm eager to follow the discussion but not to prejudice it. I need to see if others reach similar conclusions. It requires entirely new thinking that must adhere to the scientific method and to previously acquired scientific empirical data. If anyone is going to independently reconstruct my logic, I'm convinced it's going to be a member of this forum.

Here are some starter questions to consider from which a reconstruction of my approach and conclusions may be possible:
- Is there a better question to ask of the double slit experiment than, "What do the results of the double slit experiment tell us about the universe?" (That particular question can't be answered, so what's a better question to consider that can be answered?)
- What is the nature of void? (scrap the concept of "nothingness" - it's not empirically supported)
- What if mass were not a property of matter? (my apologies to anyone who worships the "god" particle, but the Higgs Boson as currently defined will not be discovered; there is not a shred of empirical scientific evidence upon which to assert that mass is a property of matter)
- Is gravity really a fundamental force?

Alternate question: In what way(s) are paradoxes involving our universe from the last 2500 years (beginning with Parmenides and Zeno of Elea) intimately related to one another at their most fundamental level?

I hope to hear back and connect with somebody, even if it has nothing to do with this pesky philosophy stuff! It's just what I obsess about when I'm anxious and depressed.

Welcome to WP.

I'll warn you upfront--this is the snakepit on this board. Within PPR you will get unvarnished opinion flying in from all directions. It is chaotic, sometimes aggressive, sometimes ill informed, but always interesting.

At the outset, I will disagree with your belief that, " members of this forum are uniquely qualified to "see"" the nature of the Universe. I subsribe to the view that Aspies are different, but we are not extraordinary. Individually we are, of course, unique. Some of us do present extraordinary characteristics. But I firmly believe that we are just as diverse, with the same range of flaws and benefits as NTs.

I also disagree with your belief that the universe is completely understandable. Even if we limit that statement to the observable universe we are still confronted with limitations. For example, the uncertainty principle suggest that we cannot know both the location and momentum of a particle. Do we completely understand that particle when we can only partially know these empirical characteristics? Or have we simply created a framework to define limits around our ability to understand?

As for your starter questions,

I don't think that there is a "better" question to ask regarding wave-particle duality. But I do think that it underscores a defect of language. We use the term "particles" because they were originally conceived of as we commonly understand particles to be. Similarly, we use the term wave, because the behaviour of the waves we observe mimics the behaviour we observe in the patterns on the surface of water. But it is, I suggest, a mistake to uncritically continue in our misapprehension of these terms.

As for the nature of void, I suggest that the question is a nullity. We can only make empirical observations in the presence of matter or energy and--more importantly--some interaction with that matter or energy. If we cannot interact with the matter or energy at a particular location, then we can observe nothing about it, and it cannot be said, therefore, to have any nature. If we cannot interact with it, it cannot have any impact on our universe, and it may as well be made of chocolate pudding.

As for mass and energy, I think that the question might well be backward. Mass is a readily measured characteristic--it is a quantitative characteristic that is readily understood in relation to velocity. But what is not nearly so well understood, I suggest, is matter. Until we can define matter, asking whether mass is a property of matter seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Finally, as to gravity, I take the view that a force is fundamental if it cannot be expressed as a function of other interactions. In those terms it seems to me that gravity is most certainly fundamental given its significant differences from the other three.

I'm really bad about picking up on the social cues, so thanks for the advice! I would welcome all of your advice in this area.

I also appreciate your comments about the members of the forum. I'm still trying to understand my own nature and I certainly have no insight into the natures of the other members. I had wanted to convey that it was my hope for members of this forum to possess the needed capabilities, but it is sometimes difficult for me to communicate what I am thinking. This is precisely the type of gaff I make when I'm feeling anxious. I apologize if I offended anyone.

Again, by "understandable" I did not intend to convey "deterministic." When any of us speak of a Theory of Everything, I assume we all consider a simple, elegant formula underlying all physical phenomena. I would not mean to imply that with such a Theory would result in a complete deterministic description of each state within our universe.

I completely concur with your comments regarding particles and waves. I was really delighted to see that we think similarly. The imprecise nature of our language provides fertile ground for the emergence of paradoxes. After all, the universe is not paradoxical.

With respect to void, I concur that observers are precluded from having a direct observational relationship with it. The one big characteristic of void with which we are familiar is that it is directly unobservable. Most observations of void do indeed involve converting void into something juicy into which we can sink our teeth and thereby establish electromagnetically-based observations and measurements, such as those involving virtual and real particles.

Where we disagree, however, is on indirect observations of void. We learn a great deal about the nature of void and the curvature of space-time through combinational observational schemes in which we combine electromagnetic observations with the non-inertial reference frames associated with the phenomena set of {gravity, acceleration, and mass}, exquisitely and accurately captured within Einstein's Field Equations in his General Theory of Relativity.

Of course we can only successfully perform observations through the interaction of matter or energy. In fact, any successful observations exclusively rely on electromagnetism, since sensors operate exclusively through the electromagnetic force. (Gravity and acceleration may of course act upon a detector, such as a mass, but the flow of information and the sensor's operation rely exclusively on electromagnetism.) A situation in which there is a complete absence of electromagnetic energy can only result in the nulll observation, as you rightly stated.

However, I would assert that the presence or absence of electromagnetic signals only determines the observability of an object or phenomenon, not its existence. This clashes with the first tenet of the Copenhagen Interpretation: "The only objective reality is that which is revealed through measurement." The precise wording represented a concession to Einstein who refuted the existence of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance." The acceptance of quantum entanglement requires a correction to be made to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

So, the point is that when we obtain a null observation we are in fact unable to make any meaningful assertion regarding existence. In essence, the phone line has been cut so no message could possibly get through. On the other hand, we can safely assert that that a null observation was achieved and there was nothing we could consider observable. The tacit assumption that void equals nothing (nullity?) is empirically unfounded. Plain and simple, this is an empirically unfounded scientific assumption that has been accepted over time as scientific truth when in fact science could assert no such thing. This is one of many faith-based belief structures within the modern scientific culture.

I submit for your consideration that a solid purely scientific argument can be constructed and successfully defended in which void is not equivalent to nothingness. The argument eliminates the need for other empirically unfounded and unvalidatable assertions made by science about multiverses, parallel universes, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics needed to balance out energy transactions where collapse of the universal wave function is denied.

It is not I who put the cart before the horse with respect to the discussion of mass and matter. The global scientific community has placed a US$10B (in 2002 or 2003 dollars) bet on it in the form of the LHC and the Higgs Boson.

The importance of momentum is well established and the measurement of mass is well understood by the science of the last few centuries. The nature of, and physical basis, for mass itself remains elusive.

Gravity is indeed quite different in magnitude from the other three forces (strong, weak, EM). Our concurrence of this is insufficient to justify its fundamental nature. If anything, the huge difference in magnitude is often cited as a reason to consider that gravity is not a fundamental force, yet this is an equally meaningless and non-scientific argument. Today's science really doesn't have any idea what to do or say about gravity.

I am suggesting, however, that there exists both a thorough philosophical basis and a strong scientific framework that can be constructed and defended which corrects a small handful of scientifically unfounded assumptions and interpretations to yield a description of gravity in which gravity is not a fundamental force.

I am merely suggesting that we might have assigned certain properties to matter that should have been assigned to void, or rather changes to the local potential of void.

It's my opinion gravity is the force that carries on it's surface all the other forces. Just like air carries sound, gravity carries electromagnetism. IMO, EM is nothing more than ripples in gravity-time. Empty space isn't empty, there's always gravity.

I think that would help to explain many features of the universe like the Higgs field and the Casimir effect for example.

At the expense of sounding obnoxious (which is not my intention at all but for which I seem to have an undesirable knack!), air does not carry sound. Rather, air carries oscillations which ultimately are perceived by an observer as sound. I give a popular talk on the physics of human perception entitled, "Pardon Me, but Your Paradoxes are Showing" in which the distinction becomes very important.

I agree that "empty space" is not empty and that among other things it possess gravitic field values. Yet, there's far more to void than meets the eye, in my opinion. This is the piece that appears to have evaded science and I'd rather not spoil the surprise for those who care to enter the rabbit hole and see where it leads.

How can void possess gravitic field values? For that matter, how in the heck can electromagnetic waves even travel through void? No one ever answered that question and it just got swept under the cosmic rug based on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the publication of the Special Theory of Relativity.

I feel that Parmenides was very close to understanding the true nature of void. He defined both his concept of the atom and void in a single sentence: The atom is the fundamental particle of matter which void can dissect no further. That guy was amazing!