Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

[QED]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

I've illustrated this scenario in the following picture:



Here our Universe, with it's critical values, is all that exists -- besides its sentient, designer-creator.

However, other forms of selection are possible. The simple act of observation can create its own selection Effect. In the illustration that follows I have drawn our Universe surrounded by numerous other universes. Within this ensemble the vast majority could be expected to have parameters that would not support life (at least in a form that would be recognizable to us). But a tiny number might. We could, therefore, have selected our own Universe as one from many, simply as a consequence of it having a favorable set of parameters for our existence.



If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

[4gold]

Hmm. Ok so we can admit other possibilities. But by what criteria are the alternatives rejected?. (I think you mean reject alternative universes that might contain alternative forms of life.)

The alternatives may be accepted or rejected based on the evidence. Just like all theories, you consider the theory, the parameters, and the assumptions, and you make your decision based on all available evidence.

I accept the possibility that alternative univeses main contain alternative life forms. I reject the notion that we can test this theory in any way.

There can only be one correct answer,

Why? We can accept other possibilities? So how do we know there can only be one answer to life? Unless of course you are saying that the observed universe can be the only universe accepted as containing life, whilst all those non observed possibilities that might also be a home to life can be rejected. Yet still keep a straight face when accepting alternative possibility universes as unable to harbour life. So when you say...

...so if fine tuning is the answer, then one must coherently reject the alternative theories.

...that fails to recognise the circularity of the argument. You have to reject the possibility of alternative life bearing universes for fine tuning to be the answer. And of course if they are not rejected that introduces huge unknowns. Which ruins the fine tuning argument. But you seem to be falling back on the fine tuning premise based on only this universe for evidence to reject the alternatives. Yet still keep the possibility of alternative dead universes. Which have to be dead because the only acceptable answer for life is this universe. Sorry, that is a completely one eyed analysis that simply fails critical examination.

I meant there can only be one correct answer to the question of how many universes there are. So whichever one is the correct answer, the alternative theories must be rejected.

Yes but you have to avoid the kind of circularity noted above. And you also need to show how any other set of alternative parameters cannot harbour life - of any kind. Including life Jim built not as we know it.

If one starts the analysis looking for the critical parameters that only lead to carbon based life then one already assumes one conclusions before the analysis begin. However the end result is then little more than an empty tautology, viz., the critical parameters for carbon based life are critical for carbon based life. A tautology that then guides methodology. For only those alternative possibilities that are a foil for that tautological conclusion are to be considered acceptable .and here is the kickerbecause carbon based life is all we can observe in a universe whose parameters are critical for carbon based life.

All we can observe, test, or verify is that which is within our own universe. While the possibility of alternative life forms exist in other universes, these theories cannot be tested.

[Openmind]

4Gold is right

If there are other universes, it would be impossible for us to ever reach them, so we can only conjecture.

This seems to come under something called the anthropic principle, correct me if I'm wrong. The reason the universe seems so perfect for life is the same reason why we are here. Some people argue this is evidence for a designer. On the contrary, it shows that life has only evolved becuase all these laws are correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe this. Same goes for earth - a lot of people say we would be frozen if it was 10km this way, and boiled if it was 10km that way. This might be true. The only reason that life developed was becuase the Earth was so perfectly positioned.

Of course this doesn't fit into creationism.

[Confused]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

Blame it on Weinberg. He made the first fatal flaw to introduce the "anthropic" concept into the cosmos. While I know that currently we cannot explain why such parameters are such parameters, I also know that them being as they are doesn't imply they were fine tuned for life. I also know that we can only see a minute amount of what we might consider the universe.

If we are only considering the empirical evidence, then neither the theory of the megaverse nor the theory of fine tuning hold water. We lack empirical data to prove either. So I can't see either functional let alone functionally equivalent. However, one might make the argument that they are both theoretically equivalent. The difference being, at some point technology may advance enough to allow us to test theoretical physics, fine tuning will never be testable.

[Furrowed Brow]

All we can observe, test, or verify is that which is within our own universe. While the possibility of alternative life forms exist in other universes, these theories cannot be tested.

Exactly. So we cannot say what possibilities will be fit for life. Which means any notion of optimal fitness or fine tuning is bogus. All we can say is that the universe is as it is - and this universe has allowed at least one instance of carbon base life to gain a foot hold. So don't be surprised that its actual parameters permit carbon based life. Talk of intelligence, purpose, design that makes claims to be an analysis formed from the evidence is a confusion heaped upon wishful thinking.

[Goat]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

Blame it on Weinberg. He made the first fatal flaw to introduce the "anthropic" concept into the cosmos. While I know that currently we cannot explain why such parameters are such parameters, I also know that them being as they are doesn't imply they were fine tuned for life. I also know that we can only see a minute amount of what we might consider the universe.

The way I look at it, the universe is not fined tuned tuned for us, but we are fined tuned for the universe, specifically, this small environment we call planet earth.

If we are the ulimate goal for the universe, there certainly is a lot of wasted space.

[4gold]

Exactly. So we cannot say what possibilities will be fit for life. Which means any notion of optimal fitness or fine tuning is bogus. All we can say is that the universe is as it is - and this universe has allowed at least one instance of carbon base life to gain a foot hold. So don't be surprised that its actual parameters permit carbon based life. Talk of intelligence, purpose, design that makes claims to be an analysis formed from the evidence is a confusion heaped upon wishful thinking.

So now we're back to the original question.

The two hypotheses we are faced with (and there are only two) are a single universe with the parameters necessary for carbon-based life or multiple universes (and there are several multiple universe theories).

As logical, rational observers who know that the answer to the hypothesis can never be determined with physical evidence, are the two hypotheses equal?

No, they are not. Multiple universe theory will always be more a more complex answer to describe why we observe what we observe in this universe.

[acamp1]

4gold wrote:

But consider why the "many worlds" hypothesis is even necessary...only to justify a philosophical viewpoint that our universe could have been created by chance.

That's incorrect. The "Many Worlds" hypothesis is an attempt to explain the "spooky" behavior of atoms at the quantum level. (Google "two-slit experiment".) It is not an attempt to explain the creation of the universe. Though, it does raise some intriguing questions about the nature and creation of our universe.

[4gold]

4gold wrote:

But consider why the "many worlds" hypothesis is even necessary...only to justify a philosophical viewpoint that our universe could have been created by chance.

That's incorrect. The "Many Worlds" hypothesis is an attempt to explain the "spooky" behavior of atoms at the quantum level. (Google "two-slit experiment".) It is not an attempt to explain the creation of the universe. Though, it does raise some intriguing questions about the nature and creation of our universe.

Thank you for your correction. I suppose what I should have written was "But consider why the "many worlds" hypothesis is even necessary...only to justify a philosophical viewpoint that what we observe in our universe could have been created by chance."

The "many worlds" hypothesis is only formed from observations within our own universe.

[otseng]

The reason the universe seems so perfect for life is the same reason why we are here.

And the reason being ... ?

While I know that currently we cannot explain why such parameters are such parameters, I also know that them being as they are doesn't imply they were fine tuned for life.

If you discount "specially designed" and "one of many", there is one other alternative I can think of. It was just luck. But simply being lucky though is not a satisfying answer.

Suppose I go into a casino and play poker. I get dealt the cards and I lay down a royal flush. The dealer would probably raise his eyebrows. Then on the next hand, I have another royal flush. The dealer would probably notify the manager. On the next hand, I have yet another royal flush. The manager comes and talks to me. I simply say, I just got lucky. But, odds are, he won't be satisfied with that answer.

So, achieving high odds demands an explanation.

The difference being, at some point technology may advance enough to allow us to test theoretical physics, fine tuning will never be testable.

In a sense, that's true. There'd be no way to directly "test" the "sentient designer creator". But, as of now, there's also no way to test the alternate universes. So, testability cannot be a criteria since it would eliminate both.

But, what you are suggesting is that in the future the alternate universes will be testable. However, we cannot appeal to the future of what might happen. We can only make conclusions based on data that we currently have.

All we can say is that the universe is as it is - and this universe has allowed at least one instance of carbon base life to gain a foot hold.

I would side with QED on this, "the apparent fine-tuning of our constants begs an explanation."

[Ncik666]

4Gold is right

If there are other universes, it would be impossible for us to ever reach them, so we can only conjecture.

This seems to come under something called the anthropic principle, correct me if I'm wrong. The reason the universe seems so perfect for life is the same reason why we are here. Some people argue this is evidence for a designer. On the contrary, it shows that life has only evolved becuase all these laws are correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe this. Same goes for earth - a lot of people say we would be frozen if it was 10km this way, and boiled if it was 10km that way. This might be true. The only reason that life developed was becuase the Earth was so perfectly positioned.

Of course this doesn't fit into creationism.

Exactly. If Earth say had no water, and life evolved anyway, I dunno say nitrogen based, we would look on the world differently but still have many of the same questions. Its the same as the Universe. I like to think of it this way. Either this is the only way the Universe can exist, or Life would evolve anyway disregarding which values are true (sorry this really doesn't really work if the whole Universe is just one random element or exploded right after it was made) Also I personally believe in multiple Universes but since we seem to be stuck on that I ignored it.