Re: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

I'll just add, once again an argument that nobody seems to agree with. At
the moment, the constants are considered low probability--that is they seem
to have been taken from a random draw. In that sense, they would seem to
favor the multiverse view which predicts exactly that--an effectively random
draw. However, if a fundamental theory is uncovered that explains the values
of the constants, that would be a big win (but not proof) for design. So, to
beat the drum one more time, it is not the low probability universe (as we
now understand it to be) that is most favorable to design, but the unit
probability/inevitable universe with a fundamental theory. It cannot be more
elegant than the constants having their life-sensitive values built into the
fabric of spacetime. The IDists are always, in my opinion, setting up their
tent on the wrong end of the probability range.

David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> The abundant, very detailed, carefully measured evidence for the "fine
> tuning" of the universe, IMO, is most simply and easily "explained" by
> divine creation ex nihilo. Now I believe in the latter independently of
> the
> BB and fine tuning -- one of the reasons I believe in it is my belief that
> Jesus was raised bodily from the grave, which requires a God powerful
> enough
> to determine the nature of nature, and therefore powerful enough to have
> created ex nihilo. Nevertheless, I believe that ex nihilo creation is
> actually the simplest explanation for a universe that (to borrow the words
> of Freeman Dyson) "looks as though it knew we were coming."
>
> I do not regard this as a scientific explanation. Period. No science I
> am
> aware of can "prove" that "God did it," or tell as anything specific about
> God that we don't already believe (such as the idea expressed by Eddington
> that God is a great mathematician).
>
> However, IMO the multiverse hypothesis is equally unscientific -- at
> least,
> not yet. No more scientific than ID or creation ex nihilo. It makes no
> predictions about our universe that can be tested, and it is actually a
> far
> more complex hypothesis than the idea of one God creating one world in one
> specific way. That is, it fails Ockham's razor quite drastically, by
> multiplying entities way beyond necessity, so far so indeed that we can't
> even count them. It functions, IMO, as a kind of "god-of-the-gaps" for
> the
> non-theist, who rules out creation for obvious reasons but still needs an
> infinite (or quasi-infinite) entity to fill in the gaps in the
> explanation.
>
> Furthermore, I think the multiverse is very much like the ether in the
> late
> 19th century. An interesting exercise would be to read Clerk Maxwell's
> essay on "ether" in Enc Britannica from the late 19th century: note how
> many
> of its properties were "known" in detail, then reflect on its existence
> (or
> lack thereof), and think carefully about the multiverse. Maxwell had
> "derived" Maxwell's equations from the hypothesis of a mechanical ether;
> the
> equations looked darn good, when compared with nature, and it was logical
> therefore to assume the existence of his ether (logical with or without
> his
> equations, since light was an undulation and the verb "undulate" requires
> a
> subject). Thus, the ether exists and has these properties. In our
> situation today, the very early universe appears to have undergone
> inflation; inflation makes better sense if there are many (hugely many)
> other universes with different properties (all governed, however, by one
> overall mathematics which must itself therefore be finely tuned, as it
> were,
> so ultimately no escaping fine tuning). Thus, these universes exist and
> we
> happen to be lucky enough to find ourselves in the one that just happens
> to
> have produced us. The parallel with the ether, it seems to me, is obvious
> and ought to give great caution to astrophysicists. Show me some of them
> other worlds, I say, before we start calling this "science." And then, if
> they exist, perhaps we ought to design a few more tests for the ether.
> Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea, after all?
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 14:19:48 2007