Black: Antony's earlier comments
Blue:- Iain's previous comments
Orange: Antony's new comments
[Antony - new]
I do recognize what you are saying here – that we do not know what was
‘before’ the big bang (whatever that means). I am not trying to prove to you
that there are not trillions of ‘attempts’ in other universes – every one of
which has failed and we are the trillion trillionth (or thereabouts) one that
got lucky and had the right conditions. I would not try to disprove the
possibility. It sounds to me (as I try to say also below) very contrived and
very unlikely. The idea is the product of a philosophy and not science. It might
be true.
[Antony - previously]
Martin Rees in his book Just 6 Numbers dismisses it - which is why
he plumps for the multiverse idea. He likens it to a man who is
condemned to death and has twenty marksmen who shoot him. All of them miss. He
opens his eyes and says - ah, they all missed. Well I am alive so they must
have missed - so there is nothing to ponder about that! It is clearly
wrong for that man to walk away without imagining the chances of such a
thing happening. Martin Rees goes for the multiverse because of the
probabilities against one universe having just the right conditions - it
allows him and others more slack with the statistics; (we are just lucky
from an almost infiinite number of failed attempts).
The multiverse idea
however is proposed for non-scientific motives - it is proposed because of
an aversion to attributing something in nature to God. This is a
philosophical position and has nothing to do with science. There is no
empirical evidence for it and it goes against the principle of parsimony or
Occam's razor.
[Iain - new]
There are basic differences in the way you and I view things. I do not
know Martin Rees, I have not read his book but undoubtedly he is a clever chap
just as you are. However I do not give unsupported statements from him any
credence unless it is supported by evidence and reasoning. So referring to
what someone else in authority says means nothing unless it is supported by the
full reasoning that led to their conclusions.
[Antony - new]
Fair enough – it was not to prove anything; merely quoting from a
recognized authority. A professor of astrophysics and former Astronomer Royal – who
knows a thing or two about the early universe and probabilities.
[Iain - new]
What evidence do you have that the only reason that the multiverse idea has
been proposed is that it was to disallow God?
[Antony - new]
Because that is the only reason the people such as Martin Rees give for
it. They have no other reason. It is conjecture; it might be true, but it has no
basis in any empirical work and is a result of a philosophy (atheism). They do
not deny this.
[Iain - new]
I think you are misusing Occam’s razor. You are using it to try to
disallow another consideration in the argument.
[Antony - new]
Adding another extra system or level of complexity unnecessarily to what
is empirically known – without any scientific reason, is a very good example of
misusing Occam’s razor. This is not just because I am disallowing another
argument.
[Iain - new]
In separate statements have made claims against my argument that it is lazy,
circular, and unhelpful. Yet you have not given any reasons why you claim
this. It is a bit like calling someone names without justification.
[Antony - new]
Well – I feel you were (at least at first) using the argument that
if we are here observing what happened in the universe then the conditions we
see are what you would expect for us being here. This is circular. My apologies
for using the word lazy – I have heard this particular argument too often (it is
not the same as the multiverse one) and find it very circular and unhelpful –
because it is!
[Antony - previously]
I am personally very very struck by the fine-tuning
argument for God - as you can see. I see it as one of the
most startling bits of evidence we have if you are looking
for statistics and facts.
[Iain - new]
An individual can be incredulous about something but it doesn't add any weight
to the validity of the argument they are making. It is facts and reasoning
that count.
[Antony - new]
Incredulity speaks of bafflement and lack of understanding. The fine-tuning arguments for God are quite the opposite – they are based upon the known
facts and probabilities.